|
|
|
|
|
| | Do you really support our troops?Page 6 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | So Do I really support our troops. Yes absolutely 100%.
Do I support the decisions to send them into Iraq and Afghanistan Absolutely NOT 100%
As we expected our governments (US and Uk) to have clear precise achievable goals with a clear strategy for long term peace.
so should we pull out now?
if we do many people will believe they were better under a dictator like Saddam and another one will come along. George Bush Senior knew something all those years ago when he stopped short of going into Iraq and dismantling the republican guard ( especially after the way Saddam retreated setting all of the Kuwaiti oil rigs on fire)
So there is no easy answer.
I think our guys with the UN will be there for the next 50 years. so we better start looking for fuel alternatives so that we do not have to deal with unstable governments. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 6:15:24 AM | | ok- "dowematch"- did the Germans strap bombs to themselves and blow up busses and restaurants??? What the Germans did was absoultely horrible and you just proved my point that this type of evil needs to be stopped. Are you denying that the Islamic terrorists would round up all the 'infidels" and kill us if they had the power to do so???? Again- another liberal that proves their ignorance on what is truly happening here!!! | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 6:33:41 AM |
Are you denying that the Islamic terrorists would round up all the 'infidels" and kill us if they had the power to do so????
Again, the West has faced FAR greater threats without shaking in fear. Massive numbers of troops, vast armadas of ships, and with most of Europe in enemy hands.
We faced that threat without paranoia or fear, and we must face this one too. The great danger is that people who are sitting here posting about the great danger we are facing have bought the hype.
These sorcerers apprentices have waved their magic wands, and not quite gotten the results they expected. This time , sadly, there is no old sorcerer to return and repair the damage done.
Even the CIA , in it's last national intelligence estimate, maintained that the situation in regards to world terrorism has gotten WORSE, and not better, since the Iraq was began.
Supporting the troops means understanding this, and understanding the true nature of this struggle, as well as the lies and deceptions that have brought us all here.
Failure to do that condemns them to more of the same, and that's not good for them, for us, or for the world. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 6:43:44 AM | "This is one of the reasons why Iraq could go on for the next 20 years"
It is also why the fallout and problems of Iraq will go on for generations..This is what most people arent addressing...This is what we are inheriting...They arent thinking about what the fallout will be when they are 70 years old...The USA isnt equipted to handle the major medical problems and trauma that will happen because of this war from either the Iraqis or our own troops..We cant even treat all of our soldiers here adequately for PTSD, medical problems, substance, depression and domestic violence....We havent even addressed the millions of civilians who suffer from PTSD now from childhood abuse.....The VA system is a joke and Walter Reed Hospital, the major military facility in the country for treating wounded soldiers, has facilities that are operating at ONE THIRD OF THE CAPACITY because of politics and bearocracy...That means two thirds of all vets and soldiers cant even get treatment there when they need it!!!!!!!!!!...How many people even know this????All of those programs and funding for therapy get axed by conservatives who vote for more war...If I worked at Walter Reed hospital as a therapist specializing in PTSD (which they asked me to do), Id still make alot less money than a govt. worker paperpusher in the Pentagon war department, even thou Id be treating our vets and soldiers who have fought the war ...So what does that REALLY tell you about our priorities and how much we really dont value soldiers?......The desire for violence, war and killing and, greed, power and oil is always a higher priority than giving medical treatment to soldiers and vets...Now thats the most f..cked up sick b..ullsh..it we have in place in our country...A huge symptom of the addictive patriarchy run amuck...Thats the insane thing about it and most dont even know about it or say a word if they do know about it | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:04:38 AM | did the germans strap bombs to themselves and blow up busses and restaurants??? WHat the Germans did was horrible and you just proved my point that this type of evil needs to be stopped.Are you denying that Islamic (Muslim) terrorists
would round up all the' infidels' and kill us if they had the power to do so???Again-another liberal that proves thier ignorance on what is truly happening here!!!
Did germans bomb people no but they would have if that was their chosen method but rather they turnedgenocide into a business like a quota system.Do the extremists do this? I don't know do they plan for maximum death tolls? Sure.BUT,if we are to understand what is going on as Poster says.MAYBE, poster needs to learn the why of another culture understanding is going to go a lot farther than the old us vs.them strategy. the same goes for labeling someone as a (liberal or republican) that is just perpetuating the divide clarifying that there is a difference.
Smart people are aware that the difference is there but but intellectually curious people want to learn the what and the why of the difference .
I don't deny that it's a possibility if extremists had the power to round up the culturally different (infidels,enemy combatants,war protesters ,the different people)BUT, as far asMuslims,Islamic fundies they do not have the ability to do that the (reality ) is that we still outnumber them,just as moral,ethical,people still outnumber idealogues,and I
don't wish to perpetuate the us vs.them scenario,well there ya go.
The thing is if the war on terror continues in the unabashed way it's going I suspect someday there will indeed be more extremists than peace seekers.
The idealist view that war will stop terror can only described as irrational. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:34:29 AM | | Well let's see did the Islamo Facist try and understand our culture when they bombed the marine barracks ? Or when they flew 3 planes into buildings on 9/11 ? Or when they went after the USS COLE ? You all know that if the US bombed Iraq today like the Germans did in WW2, there would be nothing left in Iraq...People seem too forget more Iraqi civilians were killed by insurgents than the US military . The biggest problem over there is that our soldiers and Marines are over there acting as a police force, soldiers are not trained too be policemen they are trained too be fighters, and if they were allowed to be exactly what they are trained too be this war would have been over years ago, yet for humanitarian reasons, they have become totally the opposite of what they are trained too be because of a culture over there that has no sense of being humane....... | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:39:05 AM | Again, the West has faced FAR greater threats without shaking in fear. Massive numbers of troops, vast armadas of ships, and with most of Europe in enemy hands.
We faced that threat without paranoia or fear, and we must face this one too. The great danger is that people who are sitting here posting about the great danger we are facing have bought the hype
and what enemys would you be talking about, the russians, do you remember how close to necular annilation the world was? and if your talking about the germans during ww2 we had to use force against them right.saying we have to face them with out fear is not really a soultion! also i think the difference between them enemies and this one is that those countries had a economy that could be brought down , not so much with the terrorist. also the battlefeild it self has changed, the other enemies acutally put on a uniform of a country and fought, again not so much with this one!you really think that its people on this site or sites like this one that bring the hype, iam sure most of the free thinking people use stuff like 9/11 or any other terrorist activty to make up there minds on the danger, iam pretty sure they dont look to you or me to assess the danger level that these islomo-facist causes them | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:44:23 AM | | Im an ex USN diver served for 12yrs active duty. I still support the troops by giving life saving plasma and adopting a navy team since july we have mailed them 21 boxes of personal supplies. candy, hot chocolate packets, tums, cigars, toiletries, cards, poker chips, batteries, razors, books, anhthing the sailors want all they need to do is ask and they shall recieve. its not much but ive gotten my buddies that have served to do the same. no soldier wants to be there but they signed the dotted line and pledged to serve thier country IM PROUD TO DO MY PART HOW ABOUT YOU HAVE YOU DONE YOUR PART??????? | |
|
edisto
| | Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 134 | |
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 4:03:11 PM | thank you for your concern sweetie, i did not choke on my thanksgiving tofu and soy based artifical turkey breast…
i hope that YOU did not choke on your turkey, stuffing and gravy…
And no, I'm not going to look for employment w/Blackwater because they do not serve the intrests of the American people but the intrests of those that hired them.
you’re in luck!!!
blackwater was hired by…. the US state department which means it was contracted by the US government to serve the interests of the american people~
so if you copy and send them the posts you have under this topic, i am sure they’d hire you…AND you don’t have to thank me, but i'll be happy to be one of your references because, i think you’d do a great job for them, you have, as they say…
THE RIGHT STUFF!!!
FYI, my above post is in reply to my zachattackingr on pg 4 of this forum. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 4:42:16 PM | MG, don't let thw war mongers get to you, just because your Canadian doesn't mean your wrong.
I personally agree with many of the factual evidence you've pointed out. I've known many of the details you have mentioned for years. The kind of information that gets put on page 8 of newspapers where people who are too quick to judge are most likely never going to find it.
Why kind of Nation would send its young off to possible die and never let them legally purchase a beer?
As far as Afaganstain I've never been opposed to the actions the USA has taken there. However, the invasion of Iraq I have never been in agreement with, even when others would not dare speak out. Was Hussien a bad man? Well, he wasn't at the top of the list to win any humaintian awards that I know of? Would Iraq be a better place without him? One would believe so? Yet the verdict is still out on that one...
And where is all those WMD that President Bush & his cabinet claimed to be there? Don't hear much about that do we? I mean if the public was mislead with intent to start a war that would be cause for impeachment... Hmmm if Clinton's BJ threatened the saftey of thew American way of life then I'd think the trampling of the Constitution would surfice too?
Corprotism, is the USA's single worst enemy not some relgious faction abroad. A former President ( David Dwight Eisenhower) warned the public of it just a little over half a century ago. I never found Eisnhower to be a very good President but if you read his Farewell address he was spot on with his warning. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:42:39 PM | Um topgear, get your facts straight, Hillary and Bill pubicly both stated that Saddam had WMD's infact Hillary voted infavor of the war, she saw the same intelligence that all of congress did.... Here ya go Top, read on my friend...
"Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election.
Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.
This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.
"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
"My vote," Hillary said with great sanctimony, "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." But by citing the policies of her husband, there can be no doubt that this was exactly what her vote was about.
should know. From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed first hand the duplicitous Iraq policies of the administration of Bill Clinton, the implementation of which saw a President lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the resolutions of the Security Council Hillary Clinton so piously refers to in her speech, and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
I personally witnessed the Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993 after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the UN inspector's findings that Iraq's missile program had been fundamentally disarmed. I led the UN inspector's investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper. I was in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team in the summer of 1996 as the Clinton administration used the inspection process as a vehicle for a covert action program run by the CIA intending to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
I twice traveled to the White House to brief the National Security Council in the confines of the White House Situation Room on the plans of the inspectors to pursue the possibility of concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, only to have the Clinton national security team betray the inspectors by failing to deliver the promised support, and when the inspections failed to deliver any evidence of Iraqi wrong-doing, attempt to blame the inspectors while denying any wrong doing on their part.
This last fact hits very close to home. As a former Marine Corps officer, and as a Chief Inspector responsible for the welfare of the personnel entrusted to my command, I take the act of official betrayal very seriously. "I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know," Senator Clinton said during her speech defending her vote for war, "that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them." I am left to wonder if, in citing the record of her husband when he was President, if Hillary would stand behind the troops with the same duplicitous 'vigor' that her husband displayed when betraying the UN weapons inspectors?
In February 1998 the Clinton administration backed a diplomatic effort undertaken by then-Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to help get the weapons inspection process back on track (inspections had been stalled since January 1998, when a team I led was prevented by the Iraqis from carrying out its mission because, as the Iraqis maintained, there were too many Americans and British on the team implementing the unilateral policy of regime change instead of the mandated task of disarmament). Hillary stated that she wanted a strong UN resolution designed to promote viable weapons inspections, and specifically singled out the compromises brokered by Kofi Annan to get inspectors back into Iraq as a failed effort which weakened the inspection process. What she fails to mention is that her husband initially supported the Annan mission, not so much because it paved a path towards disarmament, but rather because it provided a cover for legitimizing regime change.
I sat in the office of then US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, as the United States cut a deal with then-United Nations Special Commission Executive Chairman Richard Butler, where the timing and actions of an inspection team led my myself (a decision which was personally approved by Bill Clinton) would be closely linked to a massive US aerial bombardment of Iraq triggered by my inspection. I was supposed to facilitate a war by prompting Iraqi non-compliance. Instead, I did my job and facilitated an inspection that pushed the world closer to a recognition that Iraq was complying with its disarmament obligation. As a reward, I was shunned form the inspection process by the Clinton administration.
In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the UN inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy which turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process which undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over the duplicitous policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what they were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, referred to in glowing terms by Hillary Clinton as she endorsed the policies of deception that led our nation down the path towards war.
"So it is with conviction," Hillary said at the moment of her vote, "that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed."
It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that Hillary's husband, President Bill Clinton, knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of re-writing history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and whole heartedly when endorsing war.
Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq. "
Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) and "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006).
Looks like too me Bill and Hillary are just as guilty as Bush, but the dems would never admit that..... | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 10:16:33 PM | Who really supports the troops?
Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
I guess we know who doesn't support the troops (at least not the ones who were inconsiderate enough to be wounded).
Who supports them more, those who want them home or those who abandon them? | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/24/2007 10:34:09 PM | http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
Wtf is wrong with this country?I may be against the Iraq war but have never been against the troops.They should and deserve the best medical,pensions this country can provide. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 5:32:42 AM | "how do you go to work everyday?"
My boyfriend walks to work and takes the bus most every day..He has done so for 9 years....He's also marched in demonstrations against the war....Dont assume all folks against the war are money hungry spendthrifts with no conscious..Save that for the flagwavers.....I see most of the war hawks flaunt that driving around in their SUVs, commuting to work over an hour every day, and living in oversized houses that take huge amounts of oil to heat and maintain...Most have no desire to cut back on their consumption...My church has organized groups in place to address ecology and practical hands on ways to reduce oil consumption, like using solar energy......Those provide the real workable solutions here...People have to get over greedy mass consumption....How many war hawks can you say attend a church like that or even think cutting about back in their oil consumption by taking the bus to work?...I dont know of any...It was Bush who publically encouraged mass consumption of oil by buying and spending money people dont have so look to the leader who started your war for responsibility on that, not the war protestors... | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 6:31:37 AM | I had the same discussion one time with a computer programmer I knew. He was of the opinion since he walked to work and lived in a modest apartment downtown that somehow oil and vehicles and energy were not essential.
The, "Hey, I'm not using much of them so they must not be important" theory.
I will relay what I told him here to this board:
How do you think the computers that use your programs are made and distributed? Who is it that buys your programs? How do you think they get to work? Do you think a lack of affordable energy might impact the ability of your customers to buy your programs? What do you think your company is going to do in regards to your position when there is a need to downsize programmers due to a lack of orders?
Do you know that all the solar and wind power in our country does not generate as much energy as ONE local gas station annually?
Think about that.
It is good you can take the bus to work or buy little rice burner cars. If that makes you feel good about yourself, more power to you.
But don't think a solar panel on every roof and a hybrid in every driveway is somehow gonna reduce our need to maintain a presence in the Middle East.
Is it sunny in la la land? | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 9:21:45 AM |
Looks like too me Bill and Hillary are just as guilty as Bush, but the dems would never admit that.....
I wouldn't disagree but presently they are not in the White House. You can only impeach the current President not former ones. Besides impeachment only removes a public servant from office it doesn't hold them accountable for the crimes they may have committed, that's an enitely differnt process.
Like I said niether the Repblicans nor the Democrates can be trusted. I won't ever vote for either one... Call it a wasted vote if you like but at least I can sleep better at night knowing I didn't pick between the lesser of two evils.
It's time for a change!
And the only legal solution, would be for the majority of the States in Senate place on a bill and get it approved by them to bring a Third Contintal Congress into being. The White House will have no authority over such body and it's perfectly legal. The only problem is the military must decide if it owe's it loyality to the Contsitution "We the People" or it would rather turn on the population it's there to protect in compliance to the few who set in the Excutive branch. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 9:37:49 AM | | Um Caped, even though your off topic with the global warming topic, let's see here how bout Al Gore, the champion of the environment, the dude flies around the world in a private jet, has a house as big as Disney World, Or how bout the Clintons, samething, there are as many tree huggers out there using just as much energy as folks on the right, the only difference is that you people like too tell people what we should do instead of doing it yourself.... | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 9:58:59 AM | { Quote "On 22 October, the Security Council adopted resolution 1076 (1996), calling on all Afghan parties to end hostilities and engage in a political dialogue aimed at achieving national reconciliation. It repeated its deep concern that the conflict provided fertile ground for terrorism and drug trafficking and called on the parties to halt such activities. The General Assembly, along with the Council, condemned the abduction from United Nations premises in Kabul of former President Najibullah and his brother on 26 September, and their subsequent brutal execution by the Taliban (Assembly resolution 51/108, Council statement S/PRST/1996/40). Najibullah had taken refuge there four years earlier, but repeated calls by the Secretary-General
to allow his safe departure from the country had been ignored.
Fighting continued between the Taliban and Northern Alliance groups between 1997 and 2000, but military positions changed little. In July of 1997, the Secretary-General appointed Lakhdar Brahimi, the former Foreign Minister of Algeria, as his Special Envoy for Afghanistan, to consult with interested and relevant countries and parties and make recommendations on UN peacemaking activities there. He visited Afghanistan as part of a 13-nation tour and in October, with the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, convened a series of informal meetings with what became known as the "Six plus Two" group - composed of the six States bordering Afghanistan (China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) plus the United States and Russia.
In April 1998, through a presidential statement, the Security Council noted the increasingly ethnic nature of the conflict, and reports of ethnicity-based persecution. It also deplored the continued supply of war-making materials to the factions from foreign sources, warning that a resumption of large-scale fighting would seriously undermine efforts towards a political solution. In July, the Council raised concerns at reports of harassment of humanitarian organizations and at a decision by the Taliban to insist on the relocation of all humanitarian organizations' offices to a single location in Kabul. It also expressed deep concern at continuing discrimination against girls and women.
Following the 7 August terrorist bomb attacks on United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, which claimed hundreds of lives, the Council adopted resolution 1193 (1998) on 28 August, which repeated its concern at the continuing presence of terrorists in the territory of Afghanistan. It condemned attacks on UN personnel in Taliban-held areas, including the killing of two Afghan staff members of the World Food Programme and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Jalalabad, and of the Military Adviser to UNSMA in Kabul. It also condemned the capture of the Consulate-General of Iran in Mazar-e-Sharif. On 8 December, by resolution 1214 (1998), the Council demanded that the Taliban stop providing sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations and that all Afghan factions cooperate in bringing indicted terrorists to justice.
On 15 October 1999, citing the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to this demand, the Council applied broad sanctions under the enforcement provisions of the UN Charter. In resolution 1267 (1999), it noted that Usama bin Laden had been indicted by the United States for the August 1998 embassy bombings and demanded that the Taliban faction - never recognized as Afghanistan's legitimate government - turn him over to the appropriate authorities to be brought to justice. The sanctions, imposed on 14 November following non-compliance, included the freezing by States of all funds and other financial resources owned or controlled by the Taliban.
In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals, some of whom were below the age of 14. It expressed grave concern at the seriously deteriorating humanitarian situation and deplored the worsening human rights situation - including forced displacements of civilian populations, summary executions, abuse and arbitrary detention of civilians, violence against women and girls, and indiscriminate bombing. The capture of Iran's Consulate-General in Mazar-e-Sharif was described as a flagrant violation of international law, along with the murder there of Iranian diplomats and a journalist. Deeply disturbed by a significant increase in the cultivation, production and trafficking of drugs, especially in Taliban-controlled areas, it demanded that such illegal activities be halted. END OF QUOTE"} From the United Nations , resoulutions about Afghanistan
As you can see, the Taliban became troublesome and had sanctions agaisnt them as early as 1996 . They were involved in Terrorist activities, and supporting terrorism.
There was a mandate to act on these activities as early as 1998. The fact is, other than throw a few cruise missiles into empty training camps, and bombing a baby milk factory in Kenya, Bill Clinton did very little to go after Usama Bin Laden.
His rise to power came on Bills watch, he by and large ignored the Taliban and Al Quadea though. 9/11 happened very early on George Bush ` s watch.
Am very puzzled why Democrats and liberals up here in Canada who had mandates from the UN to do something, with United Nations approval back in 1998 , just ignored the terrorists over there, let them be.
Cant blame George, ( althogh I may not like him) , for Al Quadea, Taliban or 9/11. Clinton allowed all that to happen , on his watch.
Maybe his mind was on other things, perhaps Cuban cigars and Monika ? | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 10:43:37 AM | The Al Quadea would have done what ever they liked no matter who was in charge. I don't lay blame for the 9/11 on the current President or any former ones. In fact another devasting attack will come in the future someday are we to blame the weather man on TV for that one? I'm sure someone other there is making the plans this very minute...
The clear and simple truth is your rarely ever going to stop someone or a group hell bent on causing a massive impact. You can sometimes catch a person or group before they carry out their plan. You might get really lucky and foil a 1000 attempts but all it takes is one success. I believe with the way things where on 9/10 the planners of the attack had ever chance of being succesful with their plans. Furthermore no matter how difficult you make it there will always be someone to find a way to circumnavigate your best efforts.
The only sad thing is I saw the 9/11 day coming over a decade ago. No, I'm not a psychic (LOL). However, I don't see that happening ever again, it worked once because it was never taken seriously and that was it's fallacy and also why it was successful. The next time a major terrorist attack will occur on american soil it will come at a theme park or large festival like a state fair, something not as well guarded but sure to have a large body count. A terrorist cell living here in the States could easily construct something like a V-2 rocket but with better guidance and fire the thing with a 1 ton war head. It's not going to level a city but it sure could kill alot of people gathered around the Cinderlla castle at Disneyland during the parade event held each evening like clock work.
Can you imagine the outcome of such an attack? Lot's of people dead, hundreds of theme parks shut down across the nation, maybe the world? In the days, weeks and months to come people wouldn't go to the theme parks even once the reopened. The theme parks would be forced to lay off employees, the economy of the surrounding area where these theme parks are located would start to dwindle to nothing. That in turn would hurt travel and much much more. The terrorist would have accomplished a major attack with very little effort or investment. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 5:15:24 PM | "Is it sunny in lala land"
Not half as much as those who think violence and war will solve our oil problem and make us king of the hill for eons to come....How is increasing a preventable disease like PTSD that is caused by war "fiscally responsible"?....It isnt and never will be......All the oil in the world wont pay for services to treat that nor resolve the fallout of that....Talk about being naive and in lala land here...You will never force an attitude in another country by invading them and thinking your country "knows best" for them"....All the overcontrolling behavior of the military will never resolve that......Now thinking that is truly ignorant.....At least I dont support the increase in preventable diseases thru war and violence that increase your taxes and health insurance premiums...Think of that next time you get a premium increase in your health insurance | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 5:44:15 PM | | Top Gear , very good points. A dirty bomb can be constucted with readily availsable, material, and a single x ray machine from a hospital. It is something we should be taking seriously. | |
|
| |
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 7:01:15 PM | Excellent point Dunrich,
Hospital X-Ray machines, Flouroscopy machines ( live xray vs still pics)
and if someone were gutsy and lucky enough to try and smuggle out an MRI machine?? An MRI machine can suck your keys right out of your pocket if you are standing near by, or a filling from a tooth. Any metal object can become a projectile weapon. Perhaps a bit far fetched, none the less its been discussed in many hospital break rooms. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 8:13:35 PM | Dunrich, I'm sorry, but your wrong about Clinton being responsible for 9/11. Yes, he was president while Al-Queda gathered strength. But at least he was doing something about it. ( look up Richard Clake, read his 9/11 testimony) When Bush entered office, he could care less about terrorism, it was all about missle defense. In fact, in Feb. 2001, when the FBI definitivley pinned the USS Cole bombing on Al-Queda, they told the Bush administration. Guess what they did about it? Absolutely nothing. They didn't even raise the terrorist threat in their own cabinet. Bush was not concerned with terrorism until 9/11, then all of a sudden he realized it was a theat. Too bad it took the deaths of 3,000 American civilians for him to realize it.
Now, I couldn't care less about partisan politics, but I do care about the truth and getting facts straight. While Clinton possibly could have done more, he was trying. Bush on the other-hand, even though he knew of the threat, did absolutley nothing for 9 months. Only on Sept. 12th, did he decide to take the fight to them. | |
|
| Do you really support our troops?
Posted: 11/25/2007 8:24:21 PM | | Caped Girl, go ahead and vote for Hillary, you think your taxes are high now, wait till your taxed too pay for everyones healthcare...As for PTSD, do you think only veterans suffer from that ? Any person that has any kind of traumatic experience can suffer from PTSD.....And hun you make it sound like every veteran comming home from Iraq is suffering from it, your wrong hun.... | |
|
|
|
|
Page
6
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
