bush wants pakistan now

[CD5Passion]

greeeeaaaaatttt......

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

The president made the comments Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. (Watch Bush state his position on Iran and the war on terror -- 18:06)

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.

A January airstrike on suspected al Qaeda figures on the Pakistan border provoked protests by tens of thousands of Pakistanis and complaints by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who said U.S. officials launched the attack without consulting his government.

Bin Laden's followers killed nearly 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States and its allies overthrew Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which had allowed al Qaeda to operate within its territory -- but bin Laden slipped the U.S. noose and is believed by many to be hiding in the rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border five years later.

Pakistani authorities recently signed a peace agreement with pro-Taliban tribal leaders in the country's restive northwest after two years of clashes with the traditionally autonomous tribes that left more than 600 Pakistani troops dead. But Aziz told CNN earlier this month that top terrorist leaders like bin Laden would have "no immunity" under the agreement.

"This notion that anybody who has a record as a terrorist will get safe haven -- we would not even think of doing that," he said.

U.S. and NATO troops are now battling a Taliban resurgence in southeastern Afghanistan, and both Afghan and Pakistani officials have accused each other of not doing enough to capture pro-Taliban militants sneaking across the border.

Bush: Ahmadinejad 'knows the options before him'

Bush on Wednesday also defended his decision not to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations this week, telling CNN that Ahmadinejad "knows the options before him." (Watch President Bush explain why he takes Ahmadinejad's words seriously -- :27)

The U.N. Security Council has called on Iran to stop its uranium enrichment efforts, which the Bush administration says are aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to produce fuel for civilian power plants, and it has so far refused to halt enrichment.

Bush said the United States has agreed to talks with Iran "only if they verifiably suspended their enrichment program.

"He knows the options before him. I've made that very clear," he said. "In order for there to be effective diplomacy you can't keep changing your word."

European negotiators are trying to reach an agreement with the Iranians that will stay the threat of U.N. sanctions against Iran for flouting the Security Council's demand while talks toward a permanent resolution continue. But Bush said that "time is of the essence," and he is concerned that Tehran is "trying to buy time" in the dispute.

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday -- Bush in the morning, Ahmadinejad in the evening.

Bush addressed the Iranian people directly during his speech, telling them that Americans "respect" their country and that they "deserve an opportunity to determine your own future.

"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said. "Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."

The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic ties since 1979, when Iranian militants, who had overthrown the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammed Palavi, seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Bush labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" in 2002, along with Iraq -- which the United States invaded the following year -- and North Korea.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad criticized what he called the "abuse" of the Security Council by "hegemonic powers." He mentioned the United States by name only once during his speech, but criticized major powers he said "seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats.

"All of our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors," he said. "Why, then, are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy."

The White House said Bush did not watch the Iranian leader's speech. Asked whether he found anything encouraging in it, the president said, "Not really."

Ahmadinejad's speech was more restrained than previous addresses in which the Iranian president has questioned the existence of the Holocaust and called for the Israel's eradication.

Referring to those comments, Bush said, "My judgment is you've got to take everybody's word seriously in this world.

"You can't just hope for the best," he said. "You've got to assume that the leader, when he says that he would like to destroy Israel, means what he says. If you say, 'Well, gosh, maybe he doesn't mean it,' and you turn out to be wrong, you have not done your duty as a world leader."

The president is not the highest authority in Iran, which is an Islamic republic led by religious clerics.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

[Wren57]

He doesn't "want Pakistan". Although, nice choice of words to demonize the President as an imperialist. You're an idiot.

[ChrisCantSkate]

yeah that was a bit misleading, he's jsut sayin that if osama is in there, we'll try and go after him. leave it to cnn to make it sound like world domination. we dont "own" afganastan and thats probobly what we would do in pakistan, not another iraq, we learned.

[Robert]

Since the US government finances Pakistan ISI/Taliban through CIA and Oil contracts with Sudia money it would not make sense to invaid.

The US allowed the terrorists to flee Afgan into Pakistan, durring their invasion of the region shortly following 9/11.

I think your title takes away from the over all message of this. The US wants Pakistan to make some heads roll. Would they use their own military to do it? Yes of course they would, they need to regain some traction on the 'war on terror' however invaiding a country you have such close ties to and one that shortly after 9/11 claimed to be on ourside would be a huge mistake on many accounts.

I side with Wren.....

[GT40FIED]

Must...stay...out of...this one...

[HondaImpaler]

Fuck why can't someone just shoot Bush and call it a day?

[AzCivic]

Fuck why can't someone just shoot Bush and call it a day?

You think the vice president would do anything differently than the President?

Bush wants to get bin laden! OMG NOOOOO!!!

[AzCivic]

He doesn't "want Pakistan". Although, nice choice of words to demonize the President as an imperialist. You're an idiot.

ditto.

[Gone]

Just wait for the next generation of electives running for office. They'll perhaps be even worse.

[HondaImpaler]

Just wait for the next generation of electives running for office. They'll perhaps be even worse.

This is possible?

[Gone]

This is possible?


Of course it is. heh

[GT40FIED]

I'm still hoping to stay out of this one, but I have to make a comment of conduct. I find it a bit unsettling that all the board members who approve of Bush (and may therefore be clinically psychotic) love to call foul when other members make personal comments (who are we kidding...by "other members", I mean me). However, when you guys feel you've got safety in numbers you have no problem throwing around the word idiot or whatever. You know damn well what Darin meant, even if he phrased it poorly. Oh no...someone disagrees with you! Better circle the wagons and call him an idiot.

And really Wren...does Bush need any help being demonized as an imperialist asshole? He's really fucking good at that all on his own. He doesn't need Darin's or CNN's help. When Bush fucks up, it's not news...it's expected. If he'd did something right THAT would be news...and I would probably suffer a mild heart attack as a result of the shock.

[ChrisCantSkate]

steve the other side of that is why is it every time bush trys to do something international he's an imperialist? what would the anit-bush people be saying if it was found out our intellegence said osama was in pakistan and we did nothing? he sat on his ass once for 9/11 and im guessing he dosnt wnt to again. he would get a bunch of people saying see he only wanted iraq, or oil is his only driving force. its obvious whatever he does certain people are going to try and find the worst intentions they can think of and voice them as they are the truth. no where does it say invasion, or overthrow gov't. he said and i'll quote "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice." now that can mean many things, im not gonna say it dosnt mean invade, but you cant put words into his mouth then rip him for it. he dosnt have the best track record, and im not saying he's gonna do this one completley right, but to already point out the future assumed failures or actions is a bit...

[GT40FIED]

I see what you mean Chris...but the fact of the matter is that Pakistan doesn't want us there. Period. Now, if we could somehow pursued Pakistan to mobilize and get the job done or to let us in and do our own thing then it'd be different. I'm amazed they let us get away with an airstrike on their soil without their consultation. Let's face facts...Pakistan, unlike other countries we shake our fingers at, has a nuclear option and up until now they've been our friend. Do we really want to piss of another nuclear capable country that bad just to get one guy? I mean...I know everyone thinks he's the most evil son of a bitch alive (and maybe he is). But when you weigh the option of a possible nuclear event against the life of one guy, it seems pretty trivial. If Pakistan lets us in and we do what needs to be done (highly unlikely), fuckin A, man. Then again, that's pretty unlikely. Maybe Bush should've done his job in the first place and not let the bastard escape when we had him in our crosshairs.

[ChrisCantSkate]

understanding of course, but truth of the matter is the american gov't will persue after bin laden no matter what any other country says... because we can. now if they DO actualy put forth a honest effot to find him and we still go in anyways against their wishes then i'll have a problem with that, not if they half ass it and dont really try, jump through a few hoops and tell us to stay out. thats the difference. should we have struck without asking? probobly not, but at least now they know we're serious about persuing him in their country and they better do something to keep us out.

as for a nuke threat from pakistan.. they will be a glass parking lot faster than they can say launch. its not M.A.D. when they cant destroy us and we can destroy them. we win that battle.

[Gone]

I'm still hoping to stay out of this one, but I have to make a comment of conduct. I find it a bit unsettling that all the board members who approve of Bush (and may therefore be clinically psychotic) love to call foul when other members make personal comments (who are we kidding...by "other members", I mean me). However, when you guys feel you've got safety in numbers you have no problem throwing around the word idiot or whatever. You know damn well what Darin meant, even if he phrased it poorly. Oh no...someone disagrees with you! Better circle the wagons and call him an idiot.

And really Wren...does Bush need any help being demonized as an imperialist asshole? He's really fucking good at that all on his own. He doesn't need Darin's or CNN's help. When Bush fucks up, it's not news...it's expected. If he'd did something right THAT would be news...and I would probably suffer a mild heart attack as a result of the shock.


Agreed with.

[AkimboStylee]

You think the vice president would do anything differently than the President?


actually cheney wouldn't be medically fit to hold office, so it would to whom next?

[CD5Passion]

He doesn't "want Pakistan". Although, nice choice of words to demonize the President as an imperialist. You're an idiot.


i didn't know a common verb could be taken in such a way. maybe if I had said Bush demands...
sorry I would've used "bush fancys pakistan" but then Steve might make a gay joke:)

just thought it was an interesting article, [enter personal insult]

trust me if bush does something well I will post that too. Sure I hate him but he is our countries leader, i certainly hope something is done right.

[Robert]

You're all really mistaken to think anything would be different with any other president or party.

The reality is what is happening, and what will happen is larger then anyone person/party or decade. The things that have been set in motion started 30 years ago and wont stop with a change in presidents or party.

Patistan will not use a nuke, nor will any other country that can be targeted. The only use of nucular force will be a rouge group that cannot be traced to a physical location. FOr this to happen it will have to be done within the USA as ICBM's are not just fired from shoulders.

Pakistan will have the taliban run out, but the question is not by whom, or how but 'into what country?'

Taliban, and most terrorist groups are funded by the US currently or in the past; in some way shape or form. CIA has enough information regarding their locations and movements to take them out. The thing is its in no 'businesses' best interest to stop warring. More money is made durring conflict then any other time if you're in the military business.

War = Profits = Terrorists

Don't believe me. Look into the 32 illegal wars that have been fought in south america using US troops since 1970. Look into www.complete911timeline.org for media reports from mainstreem media leading up to, durring and since the 9/11 attack. Look into every single military conflict after vietnam and you'll see the same trend.

Then ask yourself. If we really wanted to get to teh bottom of who was invovled in 9.11 why was the head of the 9.11 commision working for bush and why did that individual right the plans to invade the middle east prior to 9.11? Why would a country ingauge is such planning?

Now ask yourself, of the 400 people arrested shortly following 9.11 how many you think have been charged. None as of right nwo have been charged. Only 6 remain is US gov't custody, as te other 394 have been quietly released.

Get informed, look past the 'facts' and find the truth. Don't let the mainstreem media tell you what to think, or how to view a situation.

I'm a bush fan, I like the guy. He's not the smartest or the best president. However he has been involved in one of the largest cover ups in US history and not one America has been able to do ANYTHING about it. Every last American in power has allowed this to unfold. I like the guy because he does what he says. Unlike everyother American who says they stand for freedom, civil liberties and justic. All of those people allow a militrary and president/party to cover up 9.11 and the truth behind it. I think it's because they're all scared of who's names are going to start popping up.

Bush might be brightest crayon at first glace, but he's got the biggest balls of anyone. The things that are taking place are bigger and have more depth then anything that has ever happened in history. The manipulation of billions of dollars, 100,000's of service men, UN, American society, control of the media, Oil and gov't policies make watergate look like a joke.

[GT40FIED]

understanding of course, but truth of the matter is the american gov't will persue after bin laden no matter what any other country says... because we can. now if they DO actualy put forth a honest effot to find him and we still go in anyways against their wishes then i'll have a problem with that, not if they half ass it and dont really try, jump through a few hoops and tell us to stay out. thats the difference. should we have struck without asking? probobly not, but at least now they know we're serious about persuing him in their country and they better do something to keep us out.

as for a nuke threat from pakistan.. they will be a glass parking lot faster than they can say launch. its not M.A.D. when they cant destroy us and we can destroy them. we win that battle.

Ok, deal me in.

American people have a problem. Whenever the question of a fight is raised, their response is usually along the lines of "we have more". There are times when the question should be "do we have the right?" or "is it absolutely necessary?". We've had 5 years to go nuts looking for bin Laden. You think it's just convenient timing that we're rattling our sabres in a run up to elections? The Republicans didn't deliver on a promise and now they're trying to look tough and like they're making an effort just before they're likely to lose control of congress. I know politics is riddled with bullshit, but that seems low even to me.

Last I checked Pakistan is a sovereign nation. One of the few we hadn't completely enraged...especially in that part of the world. If we have specific and irrefutable information as to bin Laden's whereabouts then Pakistan should let us in to do a quick in and out...no lengthy fishing expeditions for someone who may not even be there so we can have a show for cable news shows. Of course, who the hell's going to trust our intelligence these days? We've fabricated enough bad intelligence and been just plain wrong on the rest of it to be trusted on a world stage.

In short...it's no one else's fault that Bush has a small penis and feels the need to throw his weight around. He needs to knock it the fuck off with all this big talk that serves little purpose other than to piss everyone in the world off.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Ok, deal me in.

American people have a problem. Whenever the question of a fight is raised, their response is usually along the lines of "we have more". There are times when the question should be "do we have the right?" or "is it absolutely necessary?". We've had 5 years to go nuts looking for bin Laden. You think it's just convenient timing that we're rattling our sabres in a run up to elections? The Republicans didn't deliver on a promise and now they're trying to look tough and like they're making an effort just before they're likely to lose control of congress. I know politics is riddled with bullshit, but that seems low even to me.

Last I checked Pakistan is a sovereign nation. One of the few we hadn't completely enraged...especially in that part of the world. If we have specific and irrefutable information as to bin Laden's whereabouts then Pakistan should let us in to do a quick in and out...no lengthy fishing expeditions for someone who may not even be there so we can have a show for cable news shows. Of course, who the hell's going to trust our intelligence these days? We've fabricated enough bad intelligence and been just plain wrong on the rest of it to be trusted on a world stage.

In short...it's no one else's fault that Bush has a small penis and feels the need to throw his weight around. He needs to knock it the fuck off with all this big talk that serves little purpose other than to piss everyone in the world off.
ahh no no no. i didnt say we need to go in and fight, i said that we have nuke supremicy and therefor power over them in the area of nuclear war. M.A.D. is mutually assured destruction, which is basically the reason the USA and russia never nuked each other. because we knew if we fired, they could retaliate with a force capable of wiping out a majority of our country, but by the time they retaliated we could re-retalitate and wipe them out again. this keeps superpowers from engaging in war. however pakastan does not have this luxury. not only do we have a safty net around us with the best defence and early warning systems, but no sovergn nation would fire a nuclear weapon at us as it would result in them no longer existing. a sovergn nation, not terrorist group, is in the business of building and sustaining a nation no matter what their policital background is. we do not want to fight pakistan, no where is that said, no where did i even think it was implied. we want to search pakistan for taliban and osama. you want to talk about pissing people off? well if your little pakistan and you're harboring or are believed to be harboring the most wanted man in the world you have 3 options: look for him with all your capabilities, let the biggest and most pissed off superpower who wants his head look for him(which would cost your country practically nothing compaired to doing it yourself), or tell the largest and strongest superpower in the world to fuck off and stay out of the country. we arnt trying to do anything to pakistan. as you said we're on good terms with them. we dont wana overthrow their gov't, we dont want to seize their resources, we want to go poke around in some caves and see whats under a few rocks, using missles bombs and guns. do we have the right? is it absolutly nessisary? both are about 80% yes. we have the right to hunt down an enemy regime who attacked us, just like a killer who has been on the loose for 10 years still needs to be brought to justice. 5 years isnt forget and forgive time. when you get information, RESEARCH IT then act upon it. and it is absolutly nessisary because he wants to do it again, and given the time he will. he dosnt think as rationally as you or i might think, and dosnt know that he could theoretically "get away" with 9/11 if he just laid low and didnt do anything else to us. not his style, we know that, everyone else in the world knows that, thats why it is absolutly nessicary. remeber the water ban on airplanes from a month and a half ago? now we dont know if that was a taliban plan, but its their style, their level of planning, and accomplishing what they want to do. so why take the chances? how long will we let it go on? when will we know where he is but have everyone crying and saying oh no dont go there you just want to invade. then we';ve got to deal with our people slowing us down, he knows what we know then and goes elsewhere.... he just needs to be hunted down. end of story

[GT40FIED]

Well..until I see some evidence, I've gotta disagree Chris. First of all, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that Pakistan is harboring Osama aside from monday morning quaterbacking by media pundits who need to learn to shut the fuck up. He's had 5 years to get a head start. Fuck, he could be in Luxembourg for all we know. And, as I mentioned before, seeing as how this administration has a proclivity for fabricating intelligence, any given country would have every right to be suspicious. And I really don't think we're talking about just searching caves here. In Iraq we were promised precision attacks and ended up with thousands of civilian casualties. Damn those Pakistanies for wanting to protect the innocent from U.S. bombs! But remember...bigger bombs just spread more freedom.

You've also got a very American view of the whole situation. Who gets to decide who the most wanted man in the world is? Is it us because we're pissed? I seriously doubt he's the most wanted man in the middle east. Or Russia. Or Asia. Or many other places for that matter. And just because someone pissed us off doesn't give us the right to infiltrate a nation against their wishes. If the situation were reversed and someone had attacked Pakistan and fled to the U.S. do you think for a second we'd allow the Pakistani army onto our soil? Of course we wouldn;t...but we're willing to demonize any nation that tries to stop us from going to their country. Americans seem incapable of putting themselves into someone else's shoes and that's why everyone fucking hates us. It's not because we have freedom. Hell, if you hate freedom, bomb Amsterdam. They've got more than us. They hate us because we're arrogant pricks who think we have the moral right to do whatever we want and fuck you if you disagree.

[Robert]

Steve, actually there is evidence that Osama is in Pakistan.

[Wren57]

This is all I care to reply to right now based on my heavily drugged up condition:

when you guys feel you've got safety in numbers you have no problem throwing around the word idiot or whatever. Oh no...someone disagrees with you! Better circle the wagons and call him an idiot.

Steve, you should know by now how little I care about what other people think. I will call someone an idiot if I think they are in idiot, not because I think others will agree. Just because others agree does not imply my giving a shit that they agree with me... after all, my response was the first one, so at that time there was NO "safety in numbers"...

And as far as the "personal attack" calling him an idiot, well if he thinks Bush wants Pakistan then he is, indeed, an idiot which lacks all the facts. Exactly why I think voters should have to take a current-events type test and get at least 1/2 the questions correct before being allowed to vote. A sample question might be "In what Middle-Eastern country was Saddaam Hussein removed from power in the last few years?" I know there are some people who probably couldn't get that right...

[ChrisCantSkate]

Steve, actually there is evidence that Osama is in Pakistan.

WITCH HES A WITCH.......... BURN HIM

[Robert]

WITCH HES A WITCH.......... BURN HIM

LOL

[ChrisCantSkate]

well i did some research and turns out they know he was in pakistan within the last month and they have unconfirmmed rumors that he's dead. no official word so you cant assume anything about his death, but confirmed in pakistan last month....... im looking for a hole in the sand to put my head in.

[GT40FIED]

Bottom line is that bin Laden isn't a priority for us at this point. If we REALLY wanted him, we'd have had him 5 years ago. Period. You're gonna tell me the most powerful nation in the world can't find 1 guy if it wants to? Horseshit. The CIA unceremoniously closed it's Anti-bin Landen a few months ago. At this point he's just a show pony to parade in front of cameras. He even said himself that he doesn't need to attack us again. We're so gripped by fear from the last attack that we'll eventually tear ourselves apart. So far we're not proving him wrong

[Robert]

Actually CIA wants bin landen, it is deeper then CIA. But I agree with you steve.

[AzCivic]

I'm still hoping to stay out of this one, but I have to make a comment of conduct. I find it a bit unsettling that all the board members who approve of Bush (and may therefore be clinically psychotic) love to call foul when other members make personal comments (who are we kidding...by "other members", I mean me). However, when you guys feel you've got safety in numbers you have no problem throwing around the word idiot or whatever. You know damn well what Darin meant, even if he phrased it poorly. Oh no...someone disagrees with you! Better circle the wagons and call him an idiot.


Sorry if by quoting someone elses reply and agreeing with it hurt your and anyone else's feelings. I meant to agree with his statement not the insult. I didn't take the time to edit the quote, don't take it too personal.

[AzCivic]

Bottom line is that bin Laden isn't a priority for us at this point. If we REALLY wanted him, we'd have had him 5 years ago. Period. You're gonna tell me the most powerful nation in the world can't find 1 guy if it wants to? Horseshit. The CIA unceremoniously closed it's Anti-bin Landen a few months ago. At this point he's just a show pony to parade in front of cameras. He even said himself that he doesn't need to attack us again. We're so gripped by fear from the last attack that we'll eventually tear ourselves apart. So far we're not proving him wrong

Why do you pretend to know exactly what the intentions of the gov't are?

[GT40FIED]

I don't need to pretend to know their intentions. By their actions...or rather, inactions...they've essentially told us that he's not a priority. Does a number one priority disappear from the radar for 4 fucking years until, surprise, surprise...it's election time? No. A number one priority never gets put on the back burner. And aside from the perfectly logical and reasonable assumption that we haven't been tracking bin Laden like we should've been, I haven't really made any comment as to the government's intentions. Really...it's so simple children are figuring it out.

[CD5Passion]

im sorry I even posted a current event, it always ends up into a political battle

[Wren57]

Do you really expect to be able to post a global political news story, make a ridiculous remark about it, and NOT expect some people to stand up for what they believe? Ridiculous...

[GT40FIED]

Really Wren? The only remark (aside from the thread title, which isn't so much a remark and is far more true than you care to believe) was "greeeeaaaaatttt......". Aside from that, it's a quote from a news source. Now if you'd care to call the news source ridiculous...that's up to you. You'd be a dipshit...but it's still up to you. And really...you seem to like to toss around what you think is political weight...but I haven't seen you weigh in on this at all. I can only suspect this is because you know we fucked up and we'll continue to fuck up. The guy you voted for fucked us all. Deal with it.

[ChrisCantSkate]

(aside from the thread title, which isn't so much a remark and is far more true than you care to believe)

that right there is why people respond back. when you make a claim like that, which by making that statement you are saying you beleive bush wants pakistan thus you know the governments intentions, which you said earlier.. lemmi find the quote to aviod confusion...

I don't need to pretend to know their intentions.
now when a global polictical topic is brought up, something we have all grown up with over the past 5 years and all have emotions to it some way or another(or we wouldnt even borther posting ) we are all going to voice our opinion that we have. you cant say one thing, do another, then tell someone else they are the reason this mess is going on.

why is it so far fetched that among other things bush wants, finding osama is one of them? rob did bring up a good point about military business which i cannot disagree with, however i also beleive that we are asshole-ish enough to find a reason every 3-5 years to have a mini war and spend a few pennies on a probobly worthless endevor. however if he does capture osama it makes us happy, if we're happy then we dont question his intentions as much. if we had caught him like we drove sadam out of kwait 15 years ago then little trips into iraq or iran to control their way of gov't would be similar to how we got free reign on S. America in the 90's to carry out countless military operations.

im not saying thats whats going on, or will i pretend to, im just showing you the other side of the looking glass and how MAYBE just MAYBE when some information is put in front of bush's nose he'll read it and decide to act upon it at the right time. before when we wanted to get iraq the administration was reporting all these findings about sadams WMDs and whatnot, however now its other countries and most all news stations saying they beleive osama is in pakistan.. not a huge difference, but food for thought. dont think cause you have a little intuition you hit your conspiracy thoerys on the head every time

[ChrisCantSkate]

Now if you'd care to call the news source ridiculous...that's up to you. You'd be a dipshit...but it's still up to you.

CNN knows all? they are just like every other news source... sketchy at best. i have a feeling im misunderstanding what you said there cause it really sounds like your saying CNN reports the news exactly as it happens, and we need to not beleive another source. its riddled with misleading statements which can let the wandering mind beleive whatever it wants to

[Wren57]

Thanks, Chris, for expressing my exact thoughts... I've grown tired of trying to make Steve pull his head from his ass, but you seem to still try. My hats off to ya...

[CD5Passion]

Do you really expect to be able to post a global political news story, make a ridiculous remark about it, and NOT expect some people to stand up for what they believe? Ridiculous...

bush wants pakistan now
greeeeaaaaatttt......


somehow i think your views are what cause you to see this supposably "ridiculous remark" as more than it is.

[ChrisCantSkate]

somehow i think your views are what cause you to see this supposably "ridiculous remark" as more than it is.

you can use that same sentance on the view of bush wanting pakistan.. as i'll quote:


President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.


that dosnt seem like he wants it, seems like he's willing to go after him if he's there and we can confirm it.... you swung a little to the left, wren swung a little to the right... just callin it as i see it

[GT40FIED]

Thanks, Chris, for expressing my exact thoughts... I've grown tired of trying to make Steve pull his head from his ass, but you seem to still try. My hats off to ya...

Yes...because I'm clearly the problem. You've got nothing to learn...it's just me. Sounds reasonable. No...wait...what's the opposite of reasonable? Oh yeah...retarded. Maybe when you grow up you'll realize that you can't just tow the party line and expect no resistance. And even if you could, would that be all that great? If it weren't for people like me, you'd go about your life thinking you were always right. You'd be mistaken...but you'd think you were always right.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Yes...because I'm clearly the problem. You've got nothing to learn...it's just me. Sounds reasonable. No...wait...what's the opposite of reasonable? Oh yeah...retarded. Maybe when you grow up you'll realize that you can't just tow the party line and expect no resistance. And even if you could, would that be all that great? If it weren't for people like me, you'd go about your life thinking you were always right. You'd be mistaken...but you'd think you were always right.

dont milk your own ego too hard.. c'mon man.. you can do better. you completly juked my responce and ripped into him for agreeing with me?. my point i was making was how.. never mind... i tried, im tired

[GT40FIED]

dont milk your own ego too hard.. c'mon man.. you can do better. you completly juked my responce and ripped into him for agreeing with me?. my point i was making was how.. never mind... i tried, im tired

Sorry Chris...I wasn't trying to skirt your response. I'm just sick of having to try and defend a point I'm making on an issue against something like "you're head is up your ass and I know better". And really, I wasn't trying to milk my own ego...just, as you put it, trying to show the other side of the looking glass. I don't know if I'm right, and really it doesn't matter. In an argument you don't need to be right, you just have to prove the other person wrong which, by default, makes you right. As for what you said...

now when a global polictical topic is brought up, something we have all grown up with over the past 5 years and all have emotions to it some way or another(or we wouldnt even borther posting ) we are all going to voice our opinion that we have. you cant say one thing, do another, then tell someone else they are the reason this mess is going on.

why is it so far fetched that among other things bush wants, finding osama is one of them? rob did bring up a good point about military business which i cannot disagree with, however i also beleive that we are asshole-ish enough to find a reason every 3-5 years to have a mini war and spend a few pennies on a probobly worthless endevor. however if he does capture osama it makes us happy, if we're happy then we dont question his intentions as much. if we had caught him like we drove sadam out of kwait 15 years ago then little trips into iraq or iran to control their way of gov't would be similar to how we got free reign on S. America in the 90's to carry out countless military operations.

im not saying thats whats going on, or will i pretend to, im just showing you the other side of the looking glass and how MAYBE just MAYBE when some information is put in front of bush's nose he'll read it and decide to act upon it at the right time. before when we wanted to get iraq the administration was reporting all these findings about sadams WMDs and whatnot, however now its other countries and most all news stations saying they beleive osama is in pakistan.. not a huge difference, but food for thought. dont think cause you have a little intuition you hit your conspiracy thoerys on the head every time

Well I'm not disagreeing with you Chris. And the statements are pretty vague so even if I wanted to it'd be hard. I'm not saying that catching Osama isn't on Bush's "to do" list...I'm just saying it's not NEARLY as high as it needs to be but he continues to pretend like we were all over his ass all along. This is, of course, why we don't even know if he's dead or not. That's right...our intelligence is that fucking good.

As Americans, we always seem to have the wrong answers to the right questions. The question of how to get Saddam out was a good one...our answer was to decimate the entire country of Iraq, a move that was profoundly stupid. And really, it's the kind of stupid that science can learn from. As you pointed out, in the 80's/90's we walked in and out of Central and South American all the time...changing regimes, murdering heads of state, and pretty much doing what we pleased. You're gonna tell me we couldn't have done that in Iraq? It's not simply that we didn't catch Osama...it's that we easily could have but didn't. Like I said before, anyone who thinks that the largest military power in the world can't find one guy is just plain stupid. Now it's suddenly a huge deal again. Sorry, but if he really is the most wanted mani n the world and the most evil man in the world, we'd have found a way to catch him rather than throwing in the proverbial towel when Iraq went all quagmire on us.

It seems like every day there's a new story about something we're fucking up. This time it was potentially going into Pakistan against their wishes and doing away with another ally in that area. On the news now it's torture and whether or not it's ok. I'm not saying some people don't deserve it...I'm saying it's illegal and it's possibly the worst way of gathering credible intelligence out there (assuming you even interrogate the right person). Hell, hook a car battery up to my nuts and I'LL tell you where Osama is. Sure, I don't know where he is...but I'll tell you whatever you want so you stop zapping my junk. Next it'll be Iran and whether or not they have the right to bring themselves out of the bronze age (we contend they do not). All of these problems will surely bring more wrong answers and just dig us deeper into a hole. The question of catching Osama is just one small piece in a huge puzzle. Sadly, that puzzle is made of bullshit and it forms a picture of a donkey fucking a Mexican chick. The U.S. should take a cue from the days of the civil war and just ceceed from the world.

[ChrisCantSkate]

pablo escobar managed to slip our intellegence for quite some time down in south america, and he was activly dealing drugs to america with his "soldiers" coming onto our soil every week. i do think it is possible for someone to be this hard to find, granted we didnt put as much effot into finding him as osama, but osama is trying a bit harder to hide.


It seems like every day there's a new story about something we're fucking up. This time it was potentially going into Pakistan against their wishes and doing away with another ally in that area.
that story isnt about us fucking somehting up, it has potential that we might have the wrong answer for the right question, but your already assuming we've indaved and ruined another relationship with another country. not everything the government does do you have to go directly against the grain on, at least wait till they do something before tieing them upto that stake

[GT40FIED]

It;s true...they haven't...yet. But during this administration I've found that more often than not when they have a chance to fuck something up royaly, they'll do it. Holy shit, will they do it. And really, I didn't assume anything. I used the qualifier "potentially" rather than make an outright statement. The story is about Bush potentially going into Pakistan against their wishes, so I feel fairly justified in using the qualifier "potentially". However, mark my words, if we do decide to go against the grain and jump into Pakistan, we'll fuck it up. There's really no way we can't.

[ChrisCantSkate]

every president does shit like this, we just care more now as a people because of 9/11. so when shit isnt going exactly right everyone voices their opinion about how bush is doing shit wrong, and the general concensis is back on the bad intellegence, he sat on some, then kinda fabricated/beleived some other bad intel. either way, its how a superpower works in this world when it comes down to it. russia usta bully its neighbors and political interests, we did/do it too. maybe in a few hundred years shit might be different, but not yet. its the only way we know of to maintain some sort of global control, at least in our best interest, which some people call survival. maybe we step on toes... maybe they shouldnt put their toes under our feet.

if we didnt act like this, we'd already have had a nuke go off in a major city. but because of how much of assholes we are to every nation who will plot against us no nation wants any connection with a group who would do something like that. they know we'll come in and just set up military camp for a few years and piss everyone off the second it seems like they are getting ready to do something. i guess its keeping people in check. but hey, it keeps us all sleeping safe at night which isnt the case for most the world.

[GT40FIED]

That'd be great if it were true. What about this recently leaked government report that says the country is actually less safe as a result of the war? I mean...shady deeds and stupid decisions are all fine and good, but if they backfire and make us LESS safe than we were before.

[ChrisCantSkate]

scare tactics...

[Robert]

That'd be great if it were true. What about this recently leaked government report that says the country is actually less safe as a result of the war? I mean...shady deeds and stupid decisions are all fine and good, but if they backfire and make us LESS safe than we were before.

I dont trust anything, even leaked documents.

[ChrisCantSkate]

yeah i read that and thought.. hmm leak a document saying we're less safe which means we can to try harder to make us safe...

honestly i dont think anything has changed at all, for better or worse. remeber in the long run everything ends up leveling out, being equal, not really changing.

[Robert]

yeah i read that and thought.. hmm leak a document saying we're less safe which means we can to try harder to make us safe...

honestly i dont think anything has changed at all, for better or worse. remeber in the long run everything ends up leveling out, being equal, not really changing.

Agreed.

I also think that living without knowing how many people want to hurt America does not make it safer then knowing.

When the area finally stabalizes so that there are some powers in the middle east that will maintain order without US troops the entire world will be safer.

[CD5Passion]

yeah i read that and thought.. hmm leak a document saying we're less safe which means we can to try harder to make us safe...

honestly i dont think anything has changed at all, for better or worse. remeber in the long run everything ends up leveling out, being equal, not really changing.


chris you don't think that maybe we are a hell of a lot less safer due to the fact we pissed up the people who already hated us to begin with?
recruiters of the terrorist organizations are using this jihad on america and the war as a main way or recruiting new extremists. i mean just about it.I mean maybe I'm wrong but this is like a black man burning a KKK members Ford, you can expect nothing but a worse backlash.

[CD5Passion]

Agreed.

I also think that living without knowing how many people want to hurt America does not make it safer then knowing.

When the area finally stabalizes so that there are some powers in the middle east that will maintain order without US troops the entire world will be safer.

i honesty doubt that there will be any form of a stable government there that doesnt include a dictator who is willing to make examples of those who refuse to obey.

[ChrisCantSkate]

chris you don't think that maybe we are a hell of a lot less safer due to the fact we pissed up the people who already hated us to begin with?
recruiters of the terrorist organizations are using this jihad on america and the war as a main way or recruiting new extremists. i mean just about it.I mean maybe I'm wrong but this is like a black man burning a KKK members Ford, you can expect nothing but a worse backlash.

well the fact they were already pissed off enough to want to attack us but unable to really mount an offence then, and now they are just as pissed, and still unable to mount an offence..... like i said man, in the long run things dont really change. it takes ALOT more than 5, 10, even 15 years of complete change, which has to be done on both sides of the ball, for you to see any kind of stable effects. so no, i dont really feel that we are any safer or more in harms way than say 5 years ago. think what happened 5 years ago before bush had a chance to "fuck everything up" when the terrorists were basically retaliating to something clinton, bush senior, regan, etc. have been doing over there over the past 30 years. to think bush jr. single handedly made them more pissed at us is just really stretching to hate someone.

to try and debate how safe we are we must define safe by actions or intentions.. both of which i dont think has changed at all, MAYBE shifted a little, but changed in the overall picture... i think not.

[Robert]

well the fact they were already pissed off enough to want to attack us but unable to really mount an offence then, and now they are just as pissed, and still unable to mount an offence..... like i said man, in the long run things dont really change. it takes ALOT more than 5, 10, even 15 years of complete change, which has to be done on both sides of the ball, for you to see any kind of stable effects. so no, i dont really feel that we are any safer or more in harms way than say 5 years ago. think what happened 5 years ago before bush had a chance to "fuck everything up" when the terrorists were basically retaliating to something clinton, bush senior, regan, etc. have been doing over there over the past 30 years. to think bush jr. single handedly made them more pissed at us is just really stretching to hate someone.

to try and debate how safe we are we must define safe by actions or intentions.. both of which i dont think has changed at all, MAYBE shifted a little, but changed in the overall picture... i think not.

I think this answers the question CD5passion raised. Chris you took the words out of my mouth.

[GT40FIED]

Well I think Chris has a point about King Bush II not being totally responsible and bringing the actions of Clinton, King Bush I, and Reagan into the picture. But then again, only Bush II actively provoked terrorists and muslims on TV. For instance, a statement like "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is the kind of stupid I can't even begin to comprehend. It was at that point that even moderate muslims all over the world went "well...we're not with you, so...". Provocation and ultimatums don't make for safer environments. They're essentially fighting words and Bush has spent enough time in Mexico Jr. (Texas) to know a thing or two about fighting words. The solution is simple...if you want to stop people from having a desire to attack you, stop pissing them off intentionally (yeah...I'm talking to you Pope Benedict).

[ChrisCantSkate]

by pissing them off you mean telling them that if they hate us and want to attack us then we're gonna have issues? i mean i know bush should not have given an ultamatum like that, but he was also making a point that if you want to attack america then expect us to attack you back... he should have given that as an ultamatum and not what he actually said, because you know thats what he ment... is fiji with us.. not exactly, but they arnt with them. what about luxenburg or greenland. we arnt trying to divide this world into 2 groups, and i think most countries understand that, but if you hate us and wana cause us harm, we will cause you harm back

[GT40FIED]

There's one thing I don't understand...does anyone actually buy the whole "they hate us for our freedom" thing? If you think about it, it's pretty illogical. I mean...by showing they're willing to piss off the world's biggest superpower, they've already shown a proclivity towards violence. If they don't have a problem with violence and are jealous of freedom, they could save themselves a lot of hassle and just violently overthrow their own government and live however they wanted. Seems like it'd be a whole lot easier and it'd save them the problem of being pursued by a massive army. Seems like it's a ridiculously simplistic (and wrong) answer to a complex question that has a dozen better alternative answers.

And Chris...I'm not really saying Bush's line of thought is wrong. I'm saying he should never be allowed to speak in public. Ever. Get someone with diplomatic skills to do the talking as to avoid the confusion and potential pissing off of other countries. I for one don't want to be represented on a world stage by a wanna-be cowboy who got a little carried away after watching The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

[ChrisCantSkate]

There's one thing I don't understand...does anyone actually buy the whole "they hate us for our freedom" thing? If you think about it, it's pretty illogical.
well seeing as they are religious extremist who believe in the opposite of what we stand for, then we go over to try and get the dictator or whatever out of power, which gives their country free religion, or at least we try to preach that, they do get pissed. and illogical? they are willing to strap up explosives and kill themselves, i think that throws the logic argument out the window.

[Robert]

There's one thing I don't understand...does anyone actually buy the whole "they hate us for our freedom" thing? If you think about it, it's pretty illogical. I mean...by showing they're willing to piss off the world's biggest superpower, they've already shown a proclivity towards violence. If they don't have a problem with violence and are jealous of freedom, they could save themselves a lot of hassle and just violently overthrow their own government and live however they wanted. Seems like it'd be a whole lot easier and it'd save them the problem of being pursued by a massive army. Seems like it's a ridiculously simplistic (and wrong) answer to a complex question that has a dozen better alternative answers.

And Chris...I'm not really saying Bush's line of thought is wrong. I'm saying he should never be allowed to speak in public. Ever. Get someone with diplomatic skills to do the talking as to avoid the confusion and potential pissing off of other countries. I for one don't want to be represented on a world stage by a wanna-be cowboy who got a little carried away after watching The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

Steve I think you are missing a major point in all of this. These extreem groups believe we are infidels and their reiligous views tell them they must remove us. A 'Holy War' on secular societies is a huge and you have seemed to completely over looked that.

They what people like you and I dead. Their leaders preach hate towards the rest of the world. They want us gone. THis is war. Bush didn't need to say it for it to be. It was this way far before 9/11 and far before his speach telling people to pick aside.

[GT40FIED]

Rob...you're forgetting that the whole idea of a holy war (jihad) was relatively unknown to these people until WE reintroduced it in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the early 80's. Yes, it's part of their religion, but it had been largely forgotten until we showed up. And really, among any religious fanatics, hate is a symptom. It doesn't matter who they are. There are radical Christians who hate. Radical Jews who hate. Radical muslims who hate. Let's not pretend like this one denomination is any different from the others. There are plenty of moderate muslims who don't pick up weapons and go off to fight. You won't hear about them on the news, but they're out there. Shit...people here kill doctors for performing abortions. Aside from the body count, they're no different than islamic terrorists when it comes down to ideology.

And Chris...I can find a lot of flaws in your statement. First of all, not everyone we're fighting is a religious extremist. Many are simply pissed off that we're there and are fighting back. No single American can say they wouldn't do the same if the tables were turned (just watch the movie Red Dawn). Secondly, to many middle eastern countries control their population by religion. Israel, our best "ally" (sarcasm definitely intended) won't let anyone live there who isn't a jew. Jews can't marry non-jews there. Now tell me that's any more pragmatic than what happens in other countries we've got our eye on. As for preaching, who the fuck are we to even suggest we know what's right? This country's fucked 8 ways from Sunday and we're going to run around telling other countries what to do? And as for suicide bombings being illogical, just because it isn't logical to you doesn't mean a thing. Sure, I find it ridiculous...but I wasn't raised in that culture. A few hundred years ago martyrdom was a heavy prescence in christianity. Some of the more extremist muslims have simply carried on with such a tradition. This is why America shouldn't ever invade any country. We don't understand the first thing about their culture and we don't want to. We define justice by the death toll.

[ChrisCantSkate]

the illogical point was just in retort to you saying not wanting freedom is illogical... it might seem that way to us, but if you truly believe your way of life is the way to get you into the next life, if thats what you believe, then someone trying to make you act different than what you believe, your gonna be pissed. what if there were still pagen cults all over europe who sacraficed humans to their gods? would we be right to step in there and say no? well i might be in left feild and really stretching it here, but im just saying illogical is assuming there is a correct logic in the whole scheme of things. whihc there might be.. but no ones actions are displaying them. its not ours, its not thiers, but we have the bigger stick so we get to dictate more than they do. in the huge picture its wrong, but for the sake of the enxt few years, it might be the best alternavite... our opportunity cost of not controling them might be a nuked city, or another conventional bomb going off in a major city, or etc etc etc.... logical is far from easily defined in world cultures...

[Robert]

We're going in circles.

They want us dead. Who is to blame for that does not change the fact they do. Logic doesnt work with people who do not see things in the same light as you do.

[ChrisCantSkate]

thank you rob, thats what i was trying to get out

[AzCivic]

wow, I almost want to go through and read all this. Perhaps in a few weeks when I'm not so busy.

[Robert]

Did some research on the jihad, started in the 632 with the change of the direction of Islam. It wasn't a US creation.

Islam has gone through two other Jihad's since the creation of Islam in 622. We are now about 30 years into the third Jihad.

Fundimental Islams blame their failed economy, lack of land and low social standing on the ideas/social structure of the West. This isn't something new and it is taught in most mosks around the world; of which 80% are funded by Oil money. Get educated and stop blaming government for religious wars. Or imposing characteristics on a people you dont know. They do not follow the same morals as we do. Islam (rough quote) "this sins of a man will be forgiven if he dies in battle" which also means suiced. Further more the Koran says that Peace is a temporary thing until the military of Islam is more powerful then the army they must sign a peace agreement with; in either case this can last for no more then ten years.

They preach intolerance and hate. Now you have a better picture of the world we live in. BTW there is more then a billion of them and in order to be Islamic you must in some part agree with their teachings, with unfortunately makes them all a problem should this recent Jihad get more momentum.

[GT40FIED]

No...it really is a muslim creation. But the idea was pretty much lost on modern muslims until the US stepped in to help Afghans fight off the Soviets in the 80s. It'd be a lot like reintroducing the idea of crusades to christians these days.

[Robert]

No...it really is a muslim creation. But the idea was pretty much lost on modern muslims until the US stepped in to help Afghans fight off the Soviets in the 80s. It'd be a lot like reintroducing the idea of crusades to christians these days.

Actually you're wrong. I'm taking a course on terrorism as we speak and you're flat out wrong. There are no facts to what you speak of.

The Afgan's were just as much against the USSR as they were against the US. However they needed the US support to defend themselves. They were indeed a covient allie to the US as the US wanted to stop the spread of communism.

However when USSR collapsed and split into 15 countries, the militant forces needed to find a new focus. It was at this time they shifted their views to the US. The US served as a scape goat for all the things wrong in their society. With the vacum of the USSR being gone, and a collapsed economy people with nothing looked for something. The US is the supper power and the prime target to focus on when fighting the western ways. However even Muslims who are less radical then Islams are targets of hate and death. Jihad is a Koran teaching, (rough quote) "If they are not won over by the Koran, they will be taken by the sword" This is from Muhamad's own mouth and is used by Isamic militants when justifing their war. And Muhamad himself waged the first Jihad and is responsible for the conversation of many pagens. No where in either Jewish teachings or Christian teaches are you to convert through fear of death.

In contrast nowhere in the bible does it speak of waging war on non-believers. It however was a sad point in Christian history that religious power corupoted societies to act in less then Christian ways. However Christian armies twice stopped the spread of Islam into Europe, which would have completely changed history.

Further more, at the time Muslim/Islam spread from spain to asia, grew faster then any other religion in history. Things didnt really change until North America was discovered by a European. It was at this time the West advanced from owning 27% of the known world to 60%, and this was not done through religion. It was done through better navigators and military technology. After the West concored North America they created a space of tolerance, even for Muslims. It is in striking contrast to the history of Muslims/Islam; which for 14 centuries waged war without rest.

BTW Muslim/Islam - same book. Islams are more fundimental Muslims. Not unlike the term orthodox.

BTW #2 - I'd personally really like if it you could stop blaming US government for all that is wrong in the world. When compaired to soceities around the world, they are actually one of the most tolerant out there. Not perfect, this I am aware of; but not the reason for terrorism.

[GT40FIED]

You can personally like anything you want...doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

You know what's funny? Christians always like to talk about how the bible preaches love and tolerance and the Qu'Ran preaches violence and cruelty. When weighed in history, who do you think has killed more people in the name of conversion? Christians had all of the Crusades, both Inquisitions, etc. etc. etc. Muslims had...well...not much, really (with the exception of wars fought between other muslims).

And really...a class specifically in terrorism? Somehow I doubt any accredited university would teach such a class. I'm just saying, sounds a bit...questionable.

[Robert]

You can personally like anything you want...doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

You know what's funny? Christians always like to talk about how the bible preaches love and tolerance and the Qu'Ran preaches violence and cruelty. When weighed in history, who do you think has killed more people in the name of conversion? Christians had all of the Crusades, both Inquisitions, etc. etc. etc. Muslims had...well...not much, really (with the exception of wars fought between other muslims).

And really...a class specifically in terrorism? Somehow I doubt any accredited university would teach such a class. I'm just saying, sounds a bit...questionable.

Which college do you attend?

It's a GE course called 'understanding terrorism' and just because your ignorant to the school system in Canada (which is ranked higher then the US school system) doesn't mean anything in this situation. Other then the fact your US education is failing to educate you. This course explores the history behind terrorism, the development of the term and how it has evolved over time to mean something different. It is both history/terrorism as the two are so closely related.

I already explained the issues with Christians in that area. It cannot be undo, we can only move forward. The major difference, and you have chosen to ignore it is the fact that after we have overcome RC rule of government we are accepting of other religions/views. Consider for a moment the environment in North American before you open your mouth in the future speaking untruths. Canada/US were founded on Christian values, and God is in both of our consititutions. We do no wish to remove Muslims from the face of the earth and seek to maintain a peaceful state. This however is not the same view of things as Islams

Steve - I am actually rather disappointed by your last few debates on this board. In both cases you've come off as misinformed and base your arguements on weak footings.

[GT40FIED]

A course in "understanding terrorism"? Really? What textbook do you use for the curriculum? Does it include Christian terrorists like McVeigh or all of the actions taken by the IRA or maybe even Sawney Bean? It seems a lot like you're focusing on Islam...which makes such a course meaningless and pointless (not to mention bigoted). What college do I attend? Pittsburg State University. Go ahead and look it up...www.pittstate.edu.

The US may have been founded by people with christian values, but that's a far cry to that the entire country was founded on christian values. What I know (that apparently you don't) is that the people who founded this country were human and not immune from fuck ups. Look at the beginning of the Declaration Of Independence for proof. "We the people blah blah blah...in order to form a more perfect union". That's right...this country was founded upon a grammatical fuck up. Things are either perfect or they aren't. There's no such thing as "more perfect". Even if the country as a whole adhered to christian values (and if you believe that, boy did you bet on the wrong horse), christianity like all other religions is just a pawn. Yes, it teaches tolerance and understanding...in theory, the same way islam does. However in the hands of humans with agendas it becomes something more. It becomes an excuse to do whatever you feel is necessary to please your god.

If we don't wish to rid the planet of muslims, we've got a funny way of proving it to them. Bush himself said that we'd take the fight to the streets of Baghdad. That's all fine and good if you're an American...but imagine you're an Iraqi. At this point you're going "what the fuck did we do to you?". The correct answer, of course, is "nothing". There's more torture going on in Iraq now than before we ousted Saddam (just ask the UN) and we've literally given up on 1/3 of the country (Anbar Province...although I doubt I spelled that right). We've killed 130,000 innocent civilians (not counting "insurgents") and we're tolerant of islam? It must be hard to type with your head so firmly planted up your ass.

[Robert]

Actually it covers terrorism back the first acts of terrorism, the phrase was orignally french to describe state terror. The course covers more then recent terrorism, it has started to cover the IRA, AUM (in Japan) and other groups. There is no said text book for the course, however the proffesor who designed the course has his doctorate with his thesis on Terrorism. The course is a GE course and not designed to provide carrer opportunities to students, but rather open their eyes to terrorism and the true routes; not what the last 10 years have shaped us to think of it as.


As for the US they have not declared a holy war on Muslims/Islam neither due they seek to be in constant conflict with them. YOu're focusing to heavily on the last 20 years of conflict, ignoring the last 200 years. In which the US prior to invading Iraq with a UN collolition did not step foot in the middle east.

Adding to this, the US sole purpose is not to remove Muslims from the face of the earth. However that is the goal of Islam, as all non-Islam states and individuals are infidels and need to be converted or removed. This is stated numerous times in the Koran.

Yes there have been mistakes, but you need to look at things in the whole context, not the last 20 years which is a huge recency bias.

Please reply with historical facts, not conjecture or irational opinions.

Side note on colleges - I suspect you dont have a course on terrorism due to the location and lack of cultural influences. I live in Toronto Canada which is the most multi-cultural city in north america. Kansas is far from multi-cultural. There are over 70 launages spoke in this city and cultures from over 100 countries in the world. I suspect this influences greatly the course content of GE courses and what is considered acceptable. I goto georgebrown.ca college in the heart of Toronto. I believe this is the difference.

[ChrisCantSkate]

a more perfect union is not a grammatical fuckup, its a concept of building a better nation. when perfect is used as a verb it can mean to imporve and bring near perfection.
–verb (used with object)
18. to bring to completion; finish.
19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.
20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve.
21. to make fully skilled.
22. Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

granted there are almost 20 other definitions that are deffiniate, or absolute which is near impossible to reach in any circumstance anyways, i have this itching feeling that when they said they wanted to create a more perfect union it ment to improve or try and bring near perfection. the english language has lots of words with many more meanings and EXPECIALLY from a document which was made to not be exact and leave avalibility for interpretation to be able to mold and fit a certain situation, you cannot nail down your favorate meaning of a single word and use that for the basis of an argument.

steve your looking at half the situations and assuming peoples ways of life are a certain way and you know the best outcome for it. i have a good argument, but i wanted it back up with facts, and i dont feel like digging up sources now so i'll get back in a day or so with it

[Robert]

Chris has a point Steve. You're applying your value system to a people who do not believe what Western society does.

[GT40FIED]

a more perfect union is not a grammatical fuckup, its a concept of building a better nation. when perfect is used as a verb it can mean to imporve and bring near perfection.
–verb (used with object)
18. to bring to completion; finish.
19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.
20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve.
21. to make fully skilled.
22. Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

granted there are almost 20 other definitions that are deffiniate, or absolute which is near impossible to reach in any circumstance anyways, i have this itching feeling that when they said they wanted to create a more perfect union it ment to improve or try and bring near perfection. the english language has lots of words with many more meanings and EXPECIALLY from a document which was made to not be exact and leave avalibility for interpretation to be able to mold and fit a certain situation, you cannot nail down your favorate meaning of a single word and use that for the basis of an argument.

steve your looking at half the situations and assuming peoples ways of life are a certain way and you know the best outcome for it. i have a good argument, but i wanted it back up with facts, and i dont feel like digging up sources now so i'll get back in a day or so with it

Chris...I think the definition you highlighted is used in a different context. I think that's supposed to be the homonym meaning to hone something to pefection. The usage in the Constitution is as an adjective, not a verb. So yeah...it's incorrect.

And how am I only looking at half the situation? I'm intentionally trying to make things as broad as I possibly can by just stating facts with a bit of opinion thrown in. Facts don't have a system of values. I mean if you want to talk about what are commonly held as western or American values, I probably have the LEAST out of the lot here.

[Violent Apathy]

There's more torture going on in Iraq now than before we ousted Saddam (just ask the UN) and we've literally given up on 1/3 of the country (Anbar Province...although I doubt I spelled that right). We've killed 130,000 innocent civilians (not counting "insurgents") and we're tolerant of islam? It must be hard to type with your head so firmly planted up your ass.

Al Anbar is not nearly as lost as you think, or as the media may want you to think.