[Sandwich]

[q]After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000;  Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we have opponents charging him with being a war monger...

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity.  The other sponsors terrorism.  That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

Please forward this to as many people as you can!
We don't want Hillary to even THINK of running for President.

Remember:
The Alamo
Pearl Harbor
9-11-01
The Clinton Years

All Truly American Disasters!!![/q]

[Turnsky]

hmmm, the DOES make you think huh? can't think of a plausable answer..except

They KNOW where to find bill gates...

[karajorma]

What a load of rubbish. Bush's back is really up against the wall if his supporters have to start having a go at Clinton using this rubbish as a reason.

If Bush was a warmonger for going in to Afghanistan after Sept 11th then what would Clinton have been for doing it before?

After September 11th large parts of the nation were behind going to war to get the ****** who did that to them. If Bush couldn`t get the support to go into Iraq how on Earth does anyone with half a brain expect Clinton to have got the support to go into Afghanistan?

If you want to have a go at Clinton go ahead, he's no friend of mine but also remember than it was the republicans who took Osama Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia and got him interested in Afghanistan and then dumped him as soon as they`d achieved their goal of causing problems for the soviets.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
What a load of rubbish. Bush's back is really up against the wall if his supporters have to start having a go at Clinton using this rubbish as a reason.

If Bush was a warmonger for going in to Afghanistan after Sept 11th then what would Clinton have been for doing it before?

After September 11th large parts of the nation were behind going to war to get the ****** who did that to them. If Bush couldn`t get the support to go into Iraq how on Earth does anyone with half a brain expect Clinton to have got the support to go into Afghanistan?

If you want to have a go at Clinton go ahead, he's no friend of mine but also remember than it was the republicans who took Osama Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia and got him interested in Afghanistan and then dumped him as soon as they`d achieved their goal of causing problems for the soviets.

I see your point, but you're forgetting something. Did Clinton, after promising to bring justice to those responsible for {fill in the blank here}, get any flak? No. But Bush, actually keeping his word and acting upon his promises, gets flak - and for retaliating to something several orders of magnitude worse/greater than what Clinton dealt with (or didn't deal with, as the case may be).

So what is more screwed? Bush, for acting on something quite serious, or the world, for condemning him for it?

[Turnsky]

i see your point in all of this sandwich, all i can see on tv, is all those peace activists campaigning against the war in iraq for the good of the civilians without fully realising what type of person saddam really is... he idolizes Stalin  for god's sake!

the reason most of the people of iraq support saddam is because they fear him... he should not be underestimated.

he plans the make the battle for baghdad (sp?) another stalingrad..

[karajorma]

That's a completely different point though from basically blaming Clinton for 9/11.

I was fully behind Bush when it came to what went on in Afghanistan. As far as I was concerned even if they wiped out the Taliban and put a new dictatorship in their place it would be in improvement cause at least the new guys would let people fly kites or shave.

The reason why Bush gets flak now is because the attack on Iraq has very little to do with 9/11. If you're really worried about terrorism Syria and Iran are far worse. If you worried about a mad man with nuclear weapons then North Korea is far scarier.
 The fact is that going after Iraq makes Bush look like he is trying to finish off his father's unfinished business and while I`m fairly ambivalent about the war in Iraq I think that Bush deserves every bit of flak he gets since he couldn`t give a single good reason why Iraq was top of his list rather than one of the three counties I`ve mentioned.

Originally posted by Turnsky
i see your point in all of this sandwich, all i can see on tv, is all those peace activists campaigning against the war in iraq for the good of the civilians without fully realising what type of person saddam really is... he idolizes Stalin  for god's sake!

Looks like him too. Am I the only person who's ever noticed that those two look like they are related?

[Turnsky]

yeah, north korea is a tad scary, but don't forget.. the US has more than enough nukes to blast North korea into oblivion in retaliation for any attack on it's soil or it's allies. (but at what cost?)



BTW: I forgot to mention, Saddam has two idols, not one, Stalin and hitler... makes you think what kind of person he is...

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
The reason why Bush gets flak now is because the attack on Iraq has very little to do with 9/11.

Ahh, but why does everything have to do with 9/11? In my mind, 9/11 woke the part of the world up that was willing to admit they had been sleeping to the fact that terrorisim is a danger, especially when terrorist groups are being harbored and/or supported by sovreign nations. Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting. But the other point people fail to realize is that the UN has been going on about Iraq's non-compliance for 12+ years, without doing a thing about it.

But I don't get why people see a connection between the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars in that they see GW as finishing what his pap started. His father was responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, helping - along with a whole bunch of other nations - the Iraqi military from another nation.

Bush Jr. is going after a regieme headed by a madman who hasn't hesitated at gassing his own people, who is on the brink of developing WMD's (if he hasn't already), who supports terrorisim the world over, and who has been brilliantly defying the UN for over a decade.

And IIRC, Bush already mentioned that Syria or Iran is next. I havemn't kept up on the situation in North Korea, so I don't know diddley-squat about that, though.

[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting.

Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Pera


Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.

I know you're not going to consider this "proof", but believe it or not, Israel isn't in the habit of lying outright.

http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/default.stm

More specifically, here: http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm

[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich
but believe it or not, Israel isn't in the habit of lying outright.

I find that very hard to believe. Governments who are practically at war don't have the habit of being perfectly objective about the other side.

But assuming all that's said there is true, the only thing I saw even remotely linking Iraq to "terrorist activity", is them giving funds to families of Palestine suicide bombers. And since I can't downright consider the palestine suicide bombers as terrorists(at least any more than IDF), that isn't much.

What do the Palestinian extremists have to do with Al Quaida anyway? I thought we were talking about terrorist who were attacking US, not Israel.

[Odyssey]

I am extremely dubious that Saddam would support terrorism other than what he carries out himself. Remember that he rules by fear - if there was no fear, then Saddam would be nothing. He's not stupid - he knows that with this method of governing a country, if he gave any support to terrorists his ass would be blown to kingdom come by them before he knew what was happening.

[Fetty]

you know what us biggest faliure is CIA
exaple : killed salvador aliende installed pinochett

btw we where all behind taking out afganistan besides that fact that usa payd the taliban a few million bucks in aid a bit before wtc distaster and after that war ther growing opium again

but bashing clinton ? meh he was a better president for the american people than bush so far(note i sayd so far)

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Pera
And since I can't downright consider the palestine suicide bombers as terrorists(at least any more than IDF), that isn't much.

Please explain this point of view; from ground zero here, I find it impossible to comprehend. How are the suicide bombers being portrayed in your country so that they're not considered to be terrorists any more than the IDF are "terrorists"? And how do they portray the IDF, for that matter?

[CP5670]

This thread looks hilarious; everyone is a "she." I do agree that Clinton was mediocre when it came to foreign policy though.

Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.

See the Iraq thread for some simple "proof."

Looks like her too.  Am I the only person who's ever noticed that those two look like they are related

yeah, I saw that too; there is certainly an uncanny resemblance between them, as Hussein looks like a slightly chubbier Stalin.

[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich
How are the suicide bombers being portrayed in your country...

Nice way of saying it. We just tried to dismiss your opinion by making it look like I was simply misinformed by one-sided propaganda.

But to explain your opinion quickly: The Palestinians have just as much right for your piece of land as the Israeli have. I don't consider a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of civilians any worse than IDF flattening a block of buildings with tanks as a "retaliation" against "terrorist hideouts". The IDF can portray the killed civilians as "collateral damage", but they know very well what they are doing. Killing civilians on purpose is terrorism, no matter who does it, nor in what way.

To we it naturally seems I'm for Palestinians and against Israel and I understand that. It's nothing personal really, I'm not saying that we are a child killing kitten-eating monster just because we work in the IDF. You're simply doing what we think is right. Just like them.

Edit:    Why does your first paragraph look like that? I can't even edit it. Just replace "We" with we and "your" with my.

Double edit: Goddamn. The sickest April fool joke ever.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Ahh, but why does everything have to do with 9/11? In your mind, 9/11 woke the part of the world up that was willing to admit they had been sleeping to the fact that terrorisim is a danger, especially when terrorist groups are being harbored and/or supported by sovreign nations. Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting. But the other point people fail to realize is that the UN has been going on about Iraq's non-compliance for 12+ years, without doing a thing about it.

But I don't get why people see a connection between the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars in that they see GW as finishing what his pap started. Her father was responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, helping - along with a whole bunch of other nations - the Iraqi military from another nation.

Bush Jr. is going after a regieme headed by a madman who hasn't hesitated at gassing his own people, who is on the brink of developing WMD's (if she hasn't already), who supports terrorisim the world over, and who has been brilliantly defying the UN for over a decade.

And IIRC, Bush already mentioned that Syria or Iran is next. I havemn't kept up on the situation in North Korea, so I don't know diddley-squat about that, though.

Lets face facts. The war in Iraq would not be currently going on if it wasn`t for 9/11. Everyone was perfectly happy to leave Saddam alone until that happened.
 And while Saddam may be an evil man there are lots of evil men in the world and I don`t see many of them being punished.
  If Bush really wants to go after evil he should shoot his own vice president first for being involved in Savimbi's diamond smuggling in Angola even after the whole of Africa declared that they wanted Savimbi put on trial for war crimes.
 Besides even if Bush has said that Iran or Syria is next I want to know why they weren't first. I want to know why North Korea who are far closer to having the bomb isn`t being dealt with first. If you remember when Bush's big problem with WMD was getting the missile shield in place it was North Korea that was always mentioned. Now all of a sudden they are being ignored even though they are far more of a direct threat to both the US.

Explain that one to me and then you can say that Bush hasn't deserved every bit of flak he got.

[CP5670]

At least for North Korea, it is because they are more powerful and harder to deal with, so it is better to get the easier guys out the way first while they are still weak. Also, Bush is not so much after Hussein because he is an "evil man," but just that he is opposed to the US, which is all that matters here.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by CP5670
At least for North Korea, it is because they are more powerful and harder to deal with, so it is better to get the easier guys out the way first while they are still weak. Also, Bush is not so much after Hussein because she is an "evil man," but just that she is opposed to the US, which is all that matters here.

Which is why you have to deal with North Korea now. If you wait too long to get at them they'll have the bomb and then you`re stuck.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma


 Besides even if Bush has said that Iran or Syria is next I want to know why they weren't first. I want to know why North Korea who are far closer to having the bomb isn`t being dealt with first. If we remember when Bush's big problem with WMD was getting the missile shield in place it was North Korea that was always mentioned. Now all of a sudden they are being ignored even though they are far more of a direct threat to both the US.

Explain that one to me and then we can say that Bush hasn't deserved every bit of flak she got.

No matter who Bush would have gone after, there would have been people asking why she didn't go after that threat first.

And about N.K., again, I haven't read up on that issue at all.

Originally posted by Pera


Nice way of saying it. We just tried to dismiss your opinion by making it look like I was simply misinformed by one-sided propaganda.

But to explain your opinion quickly: The Palestinians have just as much right for your piece of land as the Israeli have. I don't consider a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of civilians any worse than IDF flattening a block of buildings with tanks as a "retaliation" against "terrorist hideouts". The IDF can portray the killed civilians as "collateral damage", but they know very well what they are doing. Killing civilians on purpose is terrorism, no matter who does it, nor in what way.

To we it naturally seems I'm for Palestinians and against Israel and I understand that. It's nothing personal really, I'm not saying that we are a child killing kitten-eating monster just because we work in the IDF. You're simply doing what we think is right. Just like them.

Again, that is how you see the "facts" as portrayed by the media. Try and understand that the media is not balanced. Not just about Israel and the Palestinians, but about virtually anything. On the other hand, I've been there - me, personally.

The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties. I risked my life going into Jenin, house-to-house, searching for terrorists, instead of watching from the comfort of my living room as jets tossed bombs - even "precision" bombs - on suspected terrorist hideouts.

And pardon me, but how dare you compare a suicide bomber blowing himself and 15 others up in a pizza parlor in the middle of Jerusalem to the IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings? Or is it that the world media portrays it as if we were knocking houses down on top of women and children left and right, with absolutely no warning?

Look at the ratio of deaths of women and children. Israeli women and children make up around half of the deaths, while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages (I'll find the exact numbers later). Anybody care to take a guess as to why that is, or what it means?

Look, all I'm trying to say is that everyone should be aware that the media does distort things, especially about this area of the world, and that there is always another side of the coin. Sorry if I went off the deep end, there, Pera.