Terrorism (4 Viewers)

[Len]

I doubt Bush will win the next election anyway.....

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Padovano ] ++
HaHa! Did you forget where Mr. Bin Laden is based out of? Did you forget which government allowed him to operate and supported him? Yes, it was Afghanistan and the Taliban, so saying there was no connection between the attack against the USA and Afghanistan is plainly incorrect. Iraq, is entirely another matter - Mr. Bush's personal war (finish what daddy started).

I didn't say that Afghanistan had no connection. However, I do feel that blowing the crap out of an already dirt-poor country and then leaving it to its own devices is far from an acceptable reaction to having a problem with its governments policies. The US campaign has done nothing there but set up yet another country full of people with good reason to hate them. I don't know about you, but I'd sooner have a country whose government hated me than a country whose entire population did.

My arguement against the Iraq campaign has already been stated, but I can add this - where in the US constitution does it imply that the President's role is to settle old scores?

 

[Erkka]

really good points there Mikhail...

US constitution is pretty odd anyway, I just can't understand that weapon part...

 

[Asma]

u mean the "weapons of mass destruction"?? ahh,i think its just a lame old excuse to take over countries.. :groan: what the US government really wants is the Iraqi fuel nuthin' else..

 

[sallyinzaghi]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
But the first was a valid one, until after the war was over with. And actually the second, which was removing Saddam, was a successful operation obviously.

The first one AFAIK was about wpns of mass destruction - which obviously was NOT found in Iraq, so how can it be valid yet alone justified ?

And I'm no fan of Saddam, but just curious if Iraqis in general prefer to be under Saddam (their fellow countryman) or under Us's invasion.

 

[The Pado]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

My arguement against the Iraq campaign has already been stated, but I can add this - where in the US constitution does it imply that the President's role is to settle old scores?

You just made the argument for me and my liberal ilk. Bush has no regard for the U.S. Constitution. For Bush, said document no longer exists. I, for one, will be voting to oust Bush - he must be stopped.

 

[Erkka]

Well actually I meant that IMO it's just freaky how easily they can buy guns in US, and everybody can carry a gun, coz that right is based on constitution...

But yes, weapons of mass destruction were really lame excuse!!

 

[Asma]

yeah,just like i said...lame old excuse..if Bush is man enough he would have taken over iraq and afghanistan without makin' up excuses..:fero:

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by sallyinzaghi ] ++


The first one AFAIK was about wpns of mass destruction - which obviously was NOT found in Iraq, so how can it be valid yet alone justified ?

And I'm no fan of Saddam, but just curious if Iraqis in general prefer to be under Saddam (their fellow countryman) or under Us's invasion.

Yes it was valid, because at the time all signs led to the conclusion that Saddam still had WMD's. He wouldn't let the UN Inspectors do their jobs, and the records of what he produced and was trying to produce certainly wasn't emaculate. Bush worked with the info he had at the time, and made an honest attempt to sort things out.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Poku ] ++
really good points there Mikhail...

US constitution is pretty odd anyway, I just can't understand that weapon part...

What is so odd about it? And its not like everybody from 12 year-olds to former criminal offenders can have guns. To get one legally, you must have a good background. So what else is "odd" about it?

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++

Bush worked with the info he had at the time, and made an honest attempt to sort things out.

When the UN and Us gave an ultimatum to Saddam the UN inspectors were allowed into Iraq. And guess what, they didnt find anything. They wanted more time, but Bush's administration knew that if they gave them more time they'd only be sure Saddam doesnt have WMDs, so he had to hurry up and take his chance.

 

[The Pado]

My arse is a weapon of mass destruction, and the U.N. failed to find it too.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


What is so odd about it? And its not like everybody from 12 year-olds to former criminal offenders can have guns. To get one legally, you must have a good background. So what else is "odd" about it?

dont tell me that crap about Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

 

[Asma]

++ [ originally posted by Padovano ] ++
My arse is a weapon of mass destruction, and the U.N. failed to find it too.

really? :LOL:

 

[sallyinzaghi]

Suuure, good background. But please, guns are so 'out there' it really is isn't so hard to get one, which IMO is not right. too much opportunities to trigger bloodshed.

I thought the UN DID have the chance to look for WMDs, which they didn't find - even one of the UN members confirmed it.

 

[Ian]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
You can't deny that people are jealous of this country, it is ever apparent in some cases. You look at things in more than one perspective? Is that another joke? Your opinions are just as "open" as the contradictory opinions of River and I. So don't give me that BS again.

I am open to other possibilities, but all you have to offer is the same BS about how people are just jealous of America's freedom. Has it ever occured to you that they aren't jealous of you, but rather they despise what you stand for? I mean, a lot of countries are jealous of the freedoms afforded to their citizens, but I don't see a lot of terrorists bombing the Netherlands. Take a deeper look.

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
No. Thats how I define a terrorist. Bin Laden runs a terrorist organization FFS! How the hell can he not be a terrorist?! If you fund, coordinate, and influence a terrorist organization, you are a terrorist. Thats plain and simple. Calling Bin Laden not a terrorist is rather absurd and frankly makes no sense at all. There is no argument that can beg to differ. Bin Laden is the #1 terrorist.

Well, when I talk about a terrorist, I mean a person committing terrorism. Bin Laden funds and coordinates terrorism, and if that makes him a terrorist in your book, then fine, but whenever I say the word terrorist, Bin Laden is not one of the people that I refer to.

 

[BigIzz]

++ [ originally posted by Ian ] ++

Well, when I talk about a terrorist, I mean a person committing terrorism. Bin Laden funds and coordinates terrorism, and if that makes him a terrorist in your book, then fine, but whenever I say the word terrorist, Bin Laden is not one of the people that I refer to.

So if I were to pay someone to kill you and tell them where, when and how to do it, I wouldn't be a murder?

 

[Ian]

++ [ originally posted by BigIzz ] ++
So if I were to pay someone to kill you and tell them where, when and how to do it, I wouldn't be a murder?

No. You'd be a person who hired somebody to murder me. The person who murders me woul dbe a murderer. I never thought that it was a difficult concept just to seperate two ideas instead of lumping them together.

 

[BigIzz]

Yes but I should go to jail just the same as if I actually did murder you, right? So there may be a small distinction but I don't see a big difference really.

 

[Ian]

++ [ originally posted by BigIzz ] ++
Yes but I should go to jail just the same as if I actually did murder you, right? So there may be a small distinction but I don't see a big difference really.

There is not a big difference when talking about punishment for the crimes, but there is a big difference when you talk about the motivation behind it.