Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

75% Of Al Quida Killed Or Captured

Recommended Posts

"Are you implying that there was warranted fear in the Middle East that the US would use Nukes against Iraq?"

 

No - I am STATING as fact that many Russians feared (and some still fear) America as an aggressive military presence, ready to interefere in other countries business when it suits them politiclaly, economically or both.

 

 

"I don't believe that fear of a US nuclear attack is truly representative of the situation."

 

Me neither. Nevertheless, the US has a history of invasion. It even invaded Grenada and embarrassed the Brits when it did. (I THINK they had not been told beforehand an invasion was going to happen).

 

I am not sitting in judgement on whether or not those invasions were justified - maybe you even find the word "invasion" unpalatable.

So let's use the word "actions" instead.

We are not talking about Russia, we are talking about the Middle East.

Of course some Russians still feel that way, so do many in the US regarding Russia.

 

 

The word invasion applies. The US does not really have much of a history of invasion though. It's just that we are in the spotlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one certainly would feel safer if he were captured.

 

I would feel much safer knowing Bin Laden was in custody. He is after all personally responsible for attacks on the United States, attacks that killed thoudsands of US citizens

 

Yes I would ceratinly feel safer if Bin Laden was in custody, a man who plotted to attack, has the finacial backing to attack, and has proven he can and will attack whenever he wants. He will attack again, it is not a question of if he will attack, but rather when will he attack.

 

 

 

hmm very interesting, in my opinion CD gave a good answer but yours is interesting in the aspect that you seem to assume that Osama does the planning, financing directly which is arguable. It seems to me that AQ will exist with or without Osama in power and that weakening his message and his forces would be a better assurance of safety than killing just one man. After all, killing Osama could insight even more terrorists much like the killing of Sadr.

 

Do you feel safer knowing he is still out there?

 

3 million illegal immigrants waltzed into this country this year. I wonder how many terrorists waltzed in with them.

I dont feel safer knowing hes out there nor would I feel safer knowing hes not. I dont feel unsafe as it is so I suppose its a moot point.

 

Illegal immigration should be a huge priority in this country but securing our borders is something that upsets legal latinos (though its pretty freaking stupid) which represent a large voting block similar to the jewish vote which is why we turn a blind eye to Israels actions.

 

would you be willing to better arm our border patrol agents and police the business districts on the interior...because thats what it would take. We would have to shoot them as they hopped over the fence in order to even make a dent in the flow. Though, we may as well as some foreign press reports that we do that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should of never attacked iraq in the 1st place..iraq had NOTHING to do with bin laden..if u all remember correctly..this was bushes 1st excuse to bomb iraq..then he said it was for WMD THEN he said it was freedom of iraq

 

...if we would have NOT attacked iraq..we could of gotten bin laden..instead we pawn the MOST important work to some 1 else and they failed..what they should of done is hire those same ppl..and the US join up with them to increase thier chances

 

the whole reason of startin this whole thing was to get the ppl who hurt us..instead we are hurting millions of others for a reason that is NOT clearly defined

 

clinton not only took us out of debt..but also had EXTRA money left over...bush comes into office..not ONLY does he spend the extra money..but gives us a deficiet SO high that its the highest its EVER been..so high thats its gonna reach the debt ceiling..does bush raise taxes?..no he LOWERS them and instead of trying to FIX the problem..he asks the senate to raise the debt ceiling!..come on ppl this is just stupid

 

 

let me see..lets reorgaize everything..build new orgs to deal with terrorism...give new equipment to all police officers and fireman etc AND go to war...THEN lower taxes..im sorry i can do the math but y cant he?

 

the whole point of going to war was based off of photos and documents yet ive never seen them..i dont even think UN seen them and yet he goes to war anyway?..who the hell risks millions of lifes... desrupts an entire govt and doesnt look into it enuff to relize its true or not?!?!

 

 

in the US u are innocent untill proven guilty..unless of course ur bush..then u do what ever u want then change the story later and make u 4get all about the REAL reason all of this started..u ALL were against the war when it 1st started..97% of americans were..then u got all brain washed

 

im ashamed to be an american..i have alot of friends that are not from this country..they ask me y do u ppl let it happen..and i just hold my head in shame

 

id feel better if bin laden was captured..not killed..enuff blood has been shed as it is..death dont affect them..so we imprison them..i personally would rather see him suffer behind bars then to see his dead body

 

facts spoken here..not myths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should of never attacked iraq in the 1st place..iraq had NOTHING to do with bin laden..if u all remember correctly..this was bushes 1st excuse to bomb iraq..then he said it was for WMD THEN he said it was freedom of iraq

 

...if we would have NOT attacked iraq..we could of gotten bin laden..instead we pawn the MOST important work to some 1 else and they failed..what they should of done is hire those same ppl..and the US join up with them to increase thier chances

 

the whole reason of startin this whole thing was to get the ppl who hurt us..instead we are hurting millions of others for a reason that is NOT clearly defined

 

clinton not only took us out of debt..but also had EXTRA money left over...bush comes into office..not ONLY does he spend the extra money..but gives us a deficiet SO high that its the highest its EVER been..so high thats its gonna reach the debt ceiling..does bush raise taxes?..no he LOWERS them and instead of trying to FIX the problem..he asks the senate to raise the debt ceiling!..come on ppl this is just stupid

 

 

let me see..lets reorgaize everything..build new orgs to deal with terrorism...give new equipment to all police officers and fireman etc AND go to war...THEN lower taxes..im sorry i can do the math but y cant he?

 

the whole point of going to war was based off of photos and documents yet ive never seen them..i dont even think UN seen them and yet he goes to war anyway?..who the hell risks millions of lifes... desrupts an entire govt and doesnt look into it enuff to relize its true or not?!?!

 

 

in the US u are innocent untill proven guilty..unless of course ur bush..then u do what ever u want then change the story later and make u 4get all about the REAL reason all of this started..u ALL were against the war when it 1st started..97% of americans were..then u got all brain washed

 

im ashamed to be an american..i have alot of friends that are not from this country..they ask me y do u ppl let it happen..and i just hold my head in shame

 

id feel better if bin laden was captured..not killed..enuff blood has been shed as it is..death dont affect them..so we imprison them..i personally would rather see him suffer behind bars then to see his dead body

 

facts spoken here..not myths

:tup:

 

a great post buddy!

 

Don't be ashamed of your country though, hell you live in the second best country in the world (next to Canada :) ) we do not hold this war against American either, just against Bush. I think Bush had everyone fooled with this war, and evidently still does have people fooled.

Edited by cpuguru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one2,

 

No I do not think we should better arm our border patrols. I think we should replace theem with the military, tanks, planes, machine guns, mine fields, electric fences.......................

 

3 million people will enter this country "illegally" this year, that and that alone poses a larger security threat to this nation then any other thing. It is impossible to "make safe", "protect", minimize or stop terrorrists when we do not protect our nations borders. Yes shoot first ask questions later.

 

As for Osama, well he did use much of his own money, a small amount compared to what the wealthy Saudi's gave his organization. Of course Al Quida will continue to exist, just like Iraq continues to exist, whether or not more terrorists will sprout up because he gets captured remains to be seen doesn't it? It has been proven that wealthy Saudi's including the Saudi princess are/were his major financers, yet rather theen attack the country known to finance his activeties we are are in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our country.

 

We do know for a fact that removing Saddam has created more terrorists.

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about Russia, we are talking about the Middle East.

Of course some Russians still feel that way, so do many in the US regarding Russia.

 

 

The word invasion applies. The US does not really have much of a history of invasion though. It's just that we are in the spotlight.

A fewe posts back you were talking about my neighbor.

Yuo can't have it both ways, CD - if you need to use my neighbor to make a point and then claim we are talking about the Middle East when I repsond using my Russian friends you sureky can see why I accuse you of moving th egoalposts?

 

Besdies, my point (and I think yoou are smart enough to know this) is that, if I KNOW this happens in Russia, then it is reasonable to infer it happens elsewhere (i.e. other people fear the United states aggression. I know it is true for some Brits, and other Europeans too. I am pretty sure that some Iraqis believe Bush to be in the wrong here (and probably see America as a threat). Of course I don't KNOW that and so cannot make my point 100% watertight since you have told me we are talking about the Middle East.

 

And what is "not much of a history of invasion"? Sounds as though one or two invasions are OK, just don't go over the top .

 

Saddam didn't have MUCH of a history of invasion - only Kuwait I believe.

 

I think also the "many" who regard Russia as a nuclear threat (at least in terms of missiles aimed at the cities of the US) are perhaps a little less aware of the changes in Russian recent history. Young Russians have enjoyed the new capitalism that seems to be sweeping the major cities. Of course they tend to ignore the begging babuschkas and street kids but that's a whole other topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one2,

 

No I do not think we should better arm our border patrols. I think we should replace theem with the military, tanks, planes, machine guns, mine fields, electric fences.......................

 

3 million people will enter this country "illegally" this year, that and that alone poses a larger security threat to this nation then any other thing. It is impossible to "make safe", "protect", minimize or stop terrorrists when we do not protect our nations borders. Yes shoot first ask questions later.

 

 

agreed, I am easy see :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fewe posts back you were talking about my neighbor.

Yuo can't have it both ways, CD - if you need to use my neighbor to make a point and then claim we are talking about the Middle East when I repsond using my Russian friends you sureky can see why I accuse you of moving th egoalposts?

 

Besdies, my point (and I think yoou are smart enough to know this) is that, if I KNOW this happens in Russia, then it is reasonable to infer it happens elsewhere

No, I don't think it is reasonable, and no I don't see that is is the same as my example.

 

 

Of course there might have been some Iraqis or others in the Middle East afraid of US nuclear attacks, but that was and is not a valid concern, nor is it the general concensus. That is my point. Many were concerned that Iraq was going to use WMD, and rightly so. It was a reasonable fear.

 

 

I don't believe that there is any reasonable consensus of fear anywhere in the world that the US will make a preemptive nuclear strike against anybody.

 

Does that mean that I deny that there are some who fear such? No.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would you be willing to better arm our border patrol agents and police the business districts on the interior...because thats what it would take. We would have to shoot them as they hopped over the fence in order to even make a dent in the flow. Though, we may as well as some foreign press reports that we do that anyway.

Actually, such things have already happened. US speacial forces and snipers have actually done such a thing as a training exercise.

 

Yes, illegal border crossings need to be curbed.

 

I don't sympathise with those who say they rely on such labor and will be adversely affected by the loss of it. Frankly, if you don't like the law work to change it, otherwise it should be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We do know for a fact that removing Saddam has created more terrorists.

We do?

 

I don't.

 

Those terrorists already existed as far as I am concerned. You might call them Saddam loyalists or whatever but nothing has changed about how they operate.

 

We probably ticked them off a lot, but to say we made them is I think not accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick question...would you actually feel safer if we killed Osama?

I don't feel any "Safer" since Saddam has been captured and I am not quite sure "safe" would be my key response if OBL were captured or killed....

 

It would be more like a sense of justice and honoring the memory of those who have died because of him. So far there has not been any of that for the victims of 9-11.

 

I still feel that OBL was and still is a far graver threat to this country than Saddam. But that is just my own personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll feel somewhat safer when North Korea is disarmed, when Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in Europe die out, when AIDS and other horrible diseases aren't ravaging entire continents, when idiots stop drinking and driving, when Islam doesn't view EVERYONE else as Infidels, when illegal immigrants stop flooding across the boarders bringing with them diseases and terrorists, when the FDA places more emphasis on curing cancer than giving middle-aged men erections, when I can go to the store, restaruant, or hospital and receive service from someone that can speak English and read, when China stops having babies, when this Nation's IQ climbs considerbly higher than it's current average of 98, when...

 

 

... just make the best of what's around now, face it, the world is not, nor has it ever been a safe place, and it's not going to get any better.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... just make the best of what's around now, face it, the world is not, nor has it ever been a safe place, and it's not going to get any better.

Ahhh...the voice of hope. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh...the voice of hope. :blink:

The voice of reality, doesn't mean we can't fight "the good fight" though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many were concerned that Iraq was going to use WMD, and rightly so. It was a reasonable fear.

 

 

 

No it was not .

 

The US went into Iraq to topple Saddam, not to make the world a safer place. It played upon fears that it inflamed (and the UK is guilty of this too) through incorrect intelligence and media hype.

 

Please do not presume to judge on what is and what is not a reasonable fear - fear, like all emotion, is produced through perception of a situation and not necessarily on the facts of the situation.

 

My Russian friends fear the US becasue they see an aggressive, expansionist nation holding WMDs and with as gung-ho leader currently making decisions that go against the wish of the majority of nations in the world.

 

Whether these are the facts is open to dispute - but given this is the perception, the fear is perfectly reasonable.

 

GWB didn't go into the war wiht Iraq with the facts; we were tld that firstly Saddam had WMD , then we were told he had the CAPABILITY of producing WMD. If the first statement was true, why change it and go with a second retionalisation? Because one plays on the nations fears and one has to make those fears "reasonable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

 

As far as judging what is reasonable fear, people do that all the time.

 

When the US invaded Iraq, there was great fear in the Middle East regarding what Iraq might do. In fact it wqas a matter of great international concern that was all over the news of all media types. I don't recall anything like that regarding the risk that the US would use nukes.

 

 

 

You are talking about fears within the US, I have not touched on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as judging what is reasonable fear, people do that all the time.

 

"Many were concerned that Iraq was going to use WMD, and rightly so. It was a reasonable fear."

 

You are an intelligent person so you know that this statement above is written as though the judgement is an objective fact - my reply was to point out this misleading writing.

 

Fear is fear - it exists and it is nearly always reasonable imo; I say this simply because I believe almost everyone who experiences fear is reacting in a reasonable manner to the facts as presented to them.

 

In the case of Iraq, the world was told by the US and UK administrations that Saddam had WMDs - maybe some reports stated he was prepared to use them. In this light the fear of Brits and Americans is reasonable. One report, subsequently shown to be so much dust had Saddam as ready and able to unleash these weapons in 45 minutes.

 

But what are the facts?

 

Since the story has changed several times (WMDs, then the CAPABILITY of manufacturing WMDs, now 10 shells are defined as WMDs, now WMDs were spirited away for possible use at a future date) the credibilty of those telling the story is harmed. IMO the reshuffling of the facts damages the US/UK/Australian position becasue each story is designed to bring fear to the people and th estory twists, wriggles and changes as the evidence disappears, new evidence emerges and is refuted.

 

But one tihng I am sure of - there will always be a story to "justify" the action that has brough tabout so much fear - after all, it would be political suicide for any leader to say "Guess what? I was wrong. Sorry".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry , but the credibility has not been harmed in my view because I am paying attention to what was actually said, written, and done, by those in charge, not just what the media tells me about it.

 

 

What you are quoting as the facts are more factoids and fragments than anything else.

 

 

Of course my statement about fears was subjective, that I make the statement strongly is only because I believe it. I shouldn't have to post a disclaimer with every opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry , but the credibility has not been harmed in my view because I am paying attention to what was actually said, written, and done, by those in charge, not just what the media tells me about it.

 

 

What you are quoting as the facts are more factoids and fragments than anything else.

 

 

Of course my statement about fears was subjective, that I make the statement strongly is only because I believe it. I shouldn't have to post a disclaimer with every opinion.

I can tell you as a Canadian that your credibility has been thrown out the window. There is not too many that would openly support the United States here right now but in the past there has always been a feeling of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you as a Canadian that your credibility has been thrown out the window.  There is not too many that would openly support the United States here right now but in the past there has always been a feeling of support.

Yes, of course, I don't know why you pursue it. I have already recognized that the credibility has been greatly damaged.

 

 

By repeating this assertion which has already been made clear you are implying that I don't recognize that but I do.

 

 

 

For me personally the credibility is not damaged at all. Does that make my statement more clear for you?

 

the credibility has not been harmed in my view

I don't know why the above statement was not clear as my view, as it is stated as such, but I hope that is clear now and we can move on.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not too many that would openly support the United States here right now

There is something cryptic in that statement I think. Why use the word openly?

 

Does that imply that many would like to but are afraid to because the opposition would be unkind so they support the US quietly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something cryptic in that statement I think. Why use the word openly?

 

Does that imply that many would like to but are afraid to because the opposition would be unkind so they support the US quietly?

I used "openly" as a substitute for "fully", maybe some people here do not support the states due to fear of what others think but I think mainly it is just out of disgust for some of their actions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So some openly support, some quietly support, some partly support, and some do not support the US.

 

 

Sounds like a healthy mix to me. I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of Canadians partly support the US and I would say do not support the US foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...