IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Okay, when Colin Powell shared his overwhelming evidence last December, that still wasn't enough for France. What more could they want to see? If that did not convince them, what would? A terrorist strike on Paris?

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by shartley

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

Ha ha!

Never thought of the post that way! Well as CollegeBoy is part French I could say that they are one and the same!

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

On the gulf war syndrome thing note that this is not an attack against Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. Clinton was in office in the intervening years and did not suddenly reverse the official stance on Gulf War Syndrome. We tend to get into accusing each other of being conservative/liberal. However, I really don't fully trust either side. I certainly did not trust Clinton! His caring and concerned manner always seemed false to me and I voted for him! I suppose I find myself in agreement with Jack Dubious so much is because like him I'm very dubious!

When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.
But if i had to label myself it would be a Liberal Republican. Pretty dubious, eh?

I guess I am a big supporter of balance and trying to address all sides of an issue. If this was some big left-wing, liberal, democratic, etc forum....perhaps my arguments would be different.

JDub

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.

Collegeboy read this! This is what experience brings! That is why SHartley's years of experience count for something!

Well said J Dub!

[Collegeboy]

As to what we can do to try and make the people turn on the terrorist. First all areas are different, so each area has differing reasons to make them into what they are. I will deal with the more obvious area of Palestine. First of IMO I would let the UN put a official reprimand on Israel for being in occupied land that they are not suppose to be. To do this the US needs to stop using its veto to stop this. This will force Israel out of the area. A period of 2 years needs to happen. We say in two years if there are no terrorist attacks then at the end of those two years you can officially become a nation. In that two years the UN will need to go in and help the Palestinians transfer from the life in camps to a new life. All the while they are being brought out of grief, fear, hatred, etc... They will have no reason to attack Israel. If in that two years they do so you extend the process by a year and bring sanctions against the group that did it. This will force the PLO to be held responsible for what happens. The people will get tired of the terrorist and turn them over.

To Shartly

Did I say cutting of funds only, no I said cutting of funds, etc.... Meaning going back to my statement of what I think will help. This includes the assination of the leadership. But not by a bomb dropped by a plane but on a less noticeable way. I am not saying targeting citizens. I am saying whenever you get into dropping bombs you will have citizen casualties. Where as you can live with one, the people in the area can't. How many Canadians got mad over the deaths of what 4 to 10 soldiers (I have no idea the exact number). Just imagine that every time we initiate a bombing campaign. All it takes is one bomb misplaced to cause a new surge of terrorist recruitment. I have no problem with getting rid of the leaders, but not through dropping bombs. There are countless ways to get rid of these leaders. The CIA is especially skilled in this. Let them do it. I am not determines to disagree. You just haven't showed me how I am wrong. If you cut of the source of terrorist then they will eventually dwindle down in numbers. Add to that the assination of their leaders, and we might make it to where terrorism isn’t as bad as it is today.

1st Deadeye

I never said we shouldn't go after them. Like I have said before and you all said, go after their leadership. The grunts are not good without a leadership. Do you think if Clinton could have gone and got rid of Al Queda he would have? Come on this is the guy who shot missiles to try and get public minds off of his pleasures. Clinton would have been the first guy to step in and start a war against them. And I am not French. I don't see the world as black and white, like I think some of you do. I look at the world and see difference in people, see how people actions are more then likely caused by their situations. Unlike many of you all who say these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue your ideas etc... Experience is great, but not if it hampers your thoughts.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

I predicted this post even before I scrolled down the page

First of all I can honestly say I have learned something debating this heavily with you guys. I haven't had a radical change of heart but it really made me think about the issues. I am more open to the other side than I was at the beginning of this thread. It never fully descended into a flame fest for me. The only argument that still pisses me off is the die is cast so get in line or get out arguement.

When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.
But if i had to label myself it would be a Liberal Republican. Pretty dubious, eh?

I guess I am a big supporter of balance and trying to address all sides of an issue. If this was some big left-wing, liberal, democratic, etc forum....perhaps my arguments would be different.

My wife consciously votes with the plan of balance of power. If a democrat is president she votes the opposite party for congress. She figures the best of all possible worlds is that they are so dead locked that they only pass the laws that make sense to everybody. I used to think she was crazy but now I am starting to follow her lead!

The one thing I think we ought to avoid is lack of respect for each other opinions. It is strange to me that some claim that one side shows lack of commitment/love of country. I think the following article shows the division between the norm of the American people

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?f...Content_id=703

My belief is close to Hagel while others on this board are right in step with McCain. Both obviously want what is best for this country.

[Collegeboy]

I was wondering how many other people vote that way. I will vote for key people who I figure have done a good job and will continue to do a good job. Like for the local house seat I voted for the democratic candidate for I didn't like how Everett treated my father, and other veterans like him. But I did vote for the two republican candidates for senate (Shelby and Sessions) for I thought they were better then the dem candidate. But I normally vote for the party that isn't represented by the president in elections where both candidates are equal or along the same.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!

I think everyone here is determined to disagree. If they werent then this thread would be shorter.


JDub

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
As to what we can do to try and make the people turn on the terrorist. First all areas are different, so each area has differing reasons to make them into what they are. I will deal with the more obvious area of Palestine. First of IMO I would let the UN put a official reprimand on Israel for being in occupied land that they are not suppose to be. To do this the US needs to stop using its veto to stop this. This will force Israel out of the area. A period of 2 years needs to happen. We say in two years if there are no terrorist attacks then at the end of those two years you can officially become a nation. In that two years the UN will need to go in and help the Palestinians transfer from the life in camps to a new life. All the while they are being brought out of grief, fear, hatred, etc... They will have no reason to attack Israel. If in that two years they do so you extend the process by a year and bring sanctions against the group that did it. This will force the PLO to be held responsible for what happens. The people will get tired of the terrorist and turn them over.

In a perfect world, this plan may work. We do not live in a perfect world. Sharon already offered something along this lines. He stated that if all terror attacks cease for a set period of time, he would have serious peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA was unable to stop these attacks. Second, Israel can not negotiate under the duress of terror attacks. That will only embolden the terrorist leaders and make them bigger heros to the masses. If a terroist can state, "Look, our bombs forced Israel to the bargining table", do you think bombings might then increase in an attempt to gain more leverage?

Even if Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza, they will never give up Jerusalem. You will still have fighting over this point. Also remember, Hamas, Al-Asqua, and Islamic Jihad are all dedicated to destroying Israel, not regaining the occupied territories. If Israel were to give them a legitimate state of their own, their goals would not have changed. These groups would now have the safe haven of a recognized state from which to wage their continued efforts to destroy Israel.

You can not reward terrorism and violence with talks or peace. If all attacks were to stop for a period of time and then negotiations were started fine. The UN can't put Israel in front of a gun! That would be the first step in the destruction of Israel.

*Note, I am not some Pro-Israel fanatic. I think that we give them entirely too much aid. I do feel that right now, they have no choice but to continue to retaliate in order to ensure the long term survival of Israel!

1st Deadeye

I never said we shouldn't go after them. Like I have said before and you all said, go after their leadership. The grunts are not good without a leadership. Do you think if Clinton could have gone and got rid of Al Queda he would have? Come on this is the guy who shot missiles to try and get public minds off of his pleasures. Clinton would have been the first guy to step in and start a war against them. And I am not French. I don't see the world as black and white, like I think some of you do. I look at the world and see difference in people, see how people actions are more then likely caused by their situations. Unlike many of you all who say these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue your ideas etc... Experience is great, but not if it hampers your thoughts.

You're not French? You sure talk like a Frenchman!

With the African Embassy bombings, had Clinton actually gone after Al Qaida then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now is all I will say on that.

The world is not black and white, it is shades of grey. Also, I never stated that they were born hating the US. It is a case of Nurture vs. nature. Terrorist are taught, not born.

Finally, What I am saying is that experience gives you a real world perspective with which to view something, books can't do that.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
To Shartly

Did I say cutting of funds only, no I said cutting of funds, etc.... Meaning going back to my statement of what I think will help. This includes the assination of the leadership. But not by a bomb dropped by a plane but on a less noticeable way. I am not saying targeting citizens. I am saying whenever you get into dropping bombs you will have citizen casualties. Where as you can live with one, the people in the area can't. How many Canadians got mad over the deaths of what 4 to 10 soldiers (I have no idea the exact number). Just imagine that every time we initiate a bombing campaign. All it takes is one bomb misplaced to cause a new surge of terrorist recruitment. I have no problem with getting rid of the leaders, but not through dropping bombs. There are countless ways to get rid of these leaders. The CIA is especially skilled in this. Let them do it. I am not determines to disagree. You just haven't showed me how I am wrong. If you cut of the source of terrorist then they will eventually dwindle down in numbers. Add to that the assination of their leaders, and we might make it to where terrorism isn’t as bad as it is today.

I am all for direct assassination as well, as I am sure you keep seeing me say. I use bombing as a final choice when all else seems to fail. You on the other hand refuse to even consider it as a choice. That is the difference. And that is what you keep wanting to ignore in the argument.

As for your bringing the unfortunate deaths of the Canadian Soldiers as an arguing point … SHAME ON YOU. That is such dirty pool and not even close to being the same situations. Do you know what fratricide is? Look it up. Do you know how many soldiers die in training accidents each year? Look it up. I understand what you are saying, but using that as your example is downright wrong, and disrespectful. And I wonder how many Canadian terrorist were formed because of that extremely unfortunate accident?

In any military operation, you can expect civilian casualties… period. Even if it is a “discreet” assassination you can expect civilian casualties. You can never eliminate the possibility of collateral damage, that is unless the action is a firing line. But by limiting yourself from any type of action before you even begin, the terrorists have the advantage. You give them the ability to simply move their operations to locations that they know you are not willing to attack. You give them their safe zone. Oh, I have already said that haven’t I?

As for the CIA, oh my. You obviously don’t realize that the CIA is not what it used to be… by a long shot. The NSA is actually the agency that I would put more faith in these days.

Because of Americans not wanting to get their hands dirty, the CIA and other agencies have become shadows of what they used to be. The biggest problem has been that since the last of the cold war and post cold war times, Americans have been unwilling to do what is truly needed to keep our nation safe and deal with the undercurrent of crap that exists out there, from terrorism, international organized crime, rogue nations, etc. Too many people fail to realize that to combat much of this stuff you can not do so by standing on some sort of moral high ground and use what is “socially acceptable” methods of operation. To clean up the crap, you have to be prepared to get your hands dirty…. and willing to do so if need be. But that is another issue, and I would put money down that you would argue with that as well.

You are also not realizing that terrorists recruit when there is NO bombing. Many times they draw from angry and jealous peoples. The reasons for the hatred can be as simple as ignorance and jealousy alone. Was the bombing of the WTC caused because we bombed someone? Was the attack in Yemmen(sp?) caused because we bombed someone? Was the bombing in the various other places around the world in the last 10 years caused because we bombed someone? NO? Imagine that! You mean that even if we don’t bomb people, there will still be terrorist sources? Imagine that!

Following your argument, if you take out their leadership in a precision operation and do nothing but kill the individuals, you will still spark hatred for the action. You will make them martyr and further flame the Anti-US feelings. So, maybe we should not do that either? No, that would not be a good idea either. You see, we both agree that they must be taken out, however you draw the line of acceptable measures much shorter than I do… that is all. But no matter what you do, you will cause more hatred, face it.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I never said we shouldn't go after them. Like I have said before and you all said, go after their leadership. The grunts are not good without a leadership. Do you think if Clinton could have gone and got rid of Al Queda he would have? Come on this is the guy who shot missiles to try and get public minds off of his pleasures. Clinton would have been the first guy to step in and start a war against them.

LOL Not likely. Clinton built his administration and policies on opinion polls and trying to make the world like him. He let so much crap go unanswered for the sake of “diplomacy” that it directly contributed to the WTC bombing. His actions were token actions at best. And the shooting of a few missiles is a far cry from the dedication and support needed to track down and eliminate a terrorist organization. You are correct though that he did some things likely because it helped divert attention from his personal actions, but that is about as far as it went.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't see the world as black and white, like I think some of you do. I look at the world and see difference in people, see how people actions are more then likely caused by their situations. Unlike many of you all who say these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue your ideas etc... Experience is great, but not if it hampers your thoughts.

I don’t see the world as black and white, but I do see it in terms of reality VS wishful thinking. Books give you data. Books give you information. But real world experience shows you how to interpret that information and data. And radical groups often count on people’s lack of real world experience to cloud the issues, much like you do. They use the ability to take any set of numbers, data, or information to prove any argument they want to prove. Much like you do.

Who here said that these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue our ideas? And what ideas are those? What are we trying to pursue? Many of these people have a bias toward the US caused by cultural, religious, jealousy or other reasons that have been passed down from generation to generation. But you can’t see that… or should I say refuse to see that. You think that by simply tossing money at people that they will fall in love with us. (paraphrasing) “Solve the problems that cause them to think they way they do, such as poverty, imbalance of wealth and resources, squalor, devastation, etc.”

But these are things their own governments are directly responsible for, NOT US. And you always want to act like it is our fault or responsibility. Oh.. sorry, back on topic…….

Without experience, knowledge is worthless. Without wisdom, knowledge is worthless. And you maintain that experience clouds or hampers your thoughts…. and simply because with experience it proves your points and arguments wrong. But no matter what anyone says you will maintain that you are NOT wrong. LOL So, of course experience is actually a detriment to thinking and not what pulls knowledge together and focuses it into REALITY.

You have shown that you would read 100 books on wood turning and know the ins and outs of it by the printed page (without once even holding a chisel). And then you would argue with a craftsman who actually turned wood for 50 years because he said something that was contrary to what your books told you. After all, his experience has clouded his views. He doesn’t know that each piece of wood has its own personality and should be addressed accordingly and what works with one piece may not work with another, etc. He doesn’t know all the subtle feedback that just touching a piece of wood can tell you, or look to see which piece of wood would make what part better. Heck, remember, all this stuff is wrong if it is not specifically written about in a book…. Because experience clouds your judgment, views, and overall way of thinking.

No, simply put if part of an equation does not benefit YOU, you discard it as a hindrance or as it being just wrong to begin with. I just sit back and smile, knowing that when you have kids of your own you will get a real dose of what you are at this point in your life. LOL You will also get a good dose of reality when you go to get a job and all your “book smarts” fall short against someone with less sheepskin but actual experience in the job GETS the job. I would like to hear your argument to the employer then… “But you see sir, experience just hampers your views, and is a detriment to the job.” LOL Oh, that is unless it is only a “hindrance” or “hampers” your thoughts if it is not what YOU want to think.

[Collegeboy]

I do not know where you all got that my information comes from books. I have only read one on this area of the world, and it was primarily a history of the attacks. I have said before, my understanding of the situation in Palestine, and the understanding of the situation in Israel comes not from books but from talking with the actual people who live there. With people who have first hand knowledge and experience in the subject.

I never said all experience clouds your judgment. I said experience can cloud your judgment. Would I listen to a wood craftsman on how to build a chest, yes. Would I listen to a woodcraftsman on the best way to fix a car engine, no. That is what I was trying to show you Shartley. I would listen to you any day on the mind set of a terrorist. But you would not be a good source on what makes a terrorist, on what draws them to these people that brainwashes them. I would turn to the girls above, who knows what it is like to live in this area. Who have seen fellow members of their community join these groups. I would turn to you and listen about hatred directed to military personal in a foreign country. But you would not be a good source on hatred directed to non military members. For that I would turn to my parents, but they were there a long time ago, so more recently to my community to talk to the wives and children of military men who lived in foreign countries. Even then that can be tricky in some cases. When you use a source in a paper, or in what ever you do, the most important thing to find out, even more then the information, is who is the author, where did he get this information, what was his purpose in writing this, and finally can he be conceived as having any bias or anything that might cloud his thoughts.

1de

That will work in the real world. By proposing a peace settlement, by backing out of controlled land, by putting the ball in the play of the PLO. You are taking any blame away from the Israel that the Palestinians have. I agree some groups will only be happy with Israel out. But that is the beauty behind this plan. You can now weed out those groups and deal with them individually. How do you deal with them individually you make the PLO responsible for their actions. Sooner or later they will wear out their welcome and the people will turn on them. Right now both sides are together because they have a common cause, get Israel out of the occupied land. Once you take away that commonality you will quickly see a difference being made.

Shartley

I understand you are for assassination. But like you said I will rule out the use of bombing to get it done. When you bring murder and destruction (this is through the eyes of the civilians) to them and something as noticeable as bombs, you will only grow more hatred. Again look to Bosnia for proof. Does it matter that that person might have been responsible for attacks on the US? No, the people in the area will only see it as another reason to confirm thoughts they have had installed in them by these terrorist. By an assassination it isn't as public as a bomb.

I am guessing you blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden too. It is so easy to sit back and say it is Clinton's fault. But you have to realize that maybe he didn't have all the information. Maybe he couldn't do anything about it.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
*Note, I am not some Pro-Israel fanatic. I think that we give them entirely too much aid. I do feel that right now, they have no choice but to continue to retaliate in order to ensure the long term survival of Israel!

I was starting to wonder! There have been some pro war rallying marches in the United States with people waving the US Flag with the Israeli flag (heard about it on the news). People can rally in any way they want as far as I am concerned but I think it is in the best interest of the pro war movement in the U.S. to limit foriegn flags being carried. This allows the other side to point and say that our military is being used to carry out the agenda of other countries. It is just as damaging as when peace rallys burn the American flag.

The attack on the U.S.S. Cole and September 11th put us firmly in Israels corner. After all we could not demand Israel limit their military efforts and let us start brokering the peace process when our own military was seeking revenge against attacks on us. This was the result of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. We have always Israel a massive amount of aid but I think that slowly the American public was starting to question WHY we were giving so much aid and if we were why we were not putting more pressure on Israel come to the table and start making some real concessions.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am guessing you blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden too. It is so easy to sit back and say it is Clinton's fault. But you have to realize that maybe he didn't have all the information. Maybe he couldn't do anything about it.

Ehhhhh WRONG.

Both Clinton and his flunky Madelein not-too-Albright had bin laden handed to them on a platter not once but twice and they didn't take it.

They knew EXACTLY when and where he and his cabal were going to be, including the flight number and they chose to NOT go after him.

Maddy not-too-albright even admitted this a few weeks ago on Meet The Depressed or Deface the Nation can't remember which show.

So yeah, I do blame Slick for not gettin UBL when he had the chance. Guess he was too busy gettin jobbed instead of doin his damned job.

[Collegeboy]

Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

you're unbelievable.

by the logic of your post we should never arrest criminals of ANY kind because that'll only make them mad and make them commit more crimes.

unreal, WTF color is the sky in your world kid?

you're not only a Useful Idiot, you're dangerous as well.

thank God we don't have people like you prosecuting this war. we'd cease to exist as a nation in about a week.

[shartley]

Clinton has always done what is best for Clinton… period. If his constituents benefited (be it State or Nation) all the better, but that has never been his first priority. Clinton has always worried more about being liked by the world than doing what is right.

With that said, was he a “bad” president? No. Heck, even I liked him, and am a Republican. But I see him (and saw him) for what he really is, which is a career politician and not a “leader”… and there is a difference. I don’t agree with many of his decisions, but supported him when he was in office.

Ahhh, what a novel idea! Support your sitting president even if you don’t agree with everything they do. Wow. And guess what? That does not make you a sheep, or someone who is blindly following your government. It means that you accept the choice your nation has made in its leadership and use the methods you have available to you to affect their decision making…. Which does not include (IMHO) holding Anti-(president) rallies, burning flags, speaking out against your government as if they never have done anything right (because even the most inept president we have ever had has done SOMETHING right), giving aid to the enemy, etc. Note that I am not saying anyone here on these forums are doing any of that (or saying they are not) but just pointing it out.

Then when they are out of office, go ahead and make your personal attacks on their character, overall policies, etc. People fail to realize that when in office, the president is more than the person, they are the office itself (and a few presidents have forgotten that as well).

Oh… sorry……. back to Clinton. Yup, he knew what was going on and what he should have done. But like his actions even to this day, if they don’t immediately benefit HIM, he does not do it. Again, I don’t dislike him… and actually think he is one heck of a personality and can charm the teeth our of a snake… but I see him for what he REALLY is, was, and will always be…. more concerned about his image and how he can benefit from any action over what is best for those around him.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I do not know where you all got that my information comes from books. I have only read one on this area of the world, and it was primarily a history of the attacks. I have said before, my understanding of the situation in Palestine, and the understanding of the situation in Israel comes not from books but from talking with the actual people who live there. With people who have first hand knowledge and experience in the subject.

And they are unbiased right?

I never said all experience clouds your judgment. I said experience can cloud your judgment. Would I listen to a wood craftsman on how to build a chest, yes. Would I listen to a woodcraftsman on the best way to fix a car engine, no. That is what I was trying to show you Shartley. I would listen to you any day on the mind set of a terrorist. But you would not be a good source on what makes a terrorist, on what draws them to these people that brainwashes them. I would turn to the girls above, who knows what it is like to live in this area. Who have seen fellow members of their community join these groups. I would turn to you and listen about hatred directed to military personal in a foreign country. But you would not be a good source on hatred directed to non military members. For that I would turn to my parents, but they were there a long time ago, so more recently to my community to talk to the wives and children of military men who lived in foreign countries. Even then that can be tricky in some cases. When you use a source in a paper, or in what ever you do, the most important thing to find out, even more then the information, is who is the author, where did he get this information, what was his purpose in writing this, and finally can he be conceived as having any bias or anything that might cloud his thoughts.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say experience clouds your judgement, but I learned from talking to people who are from the camps. The fact is that it is Palestinians who are blowing themselves up to kill Israelis, not the other way around!

1de

That will work in the real world. By proposing a peace settlement, by backing out of controlled land, by putting the ball in the play of the PLO. You are taking any blame away from the Israel that the Palestinians have. I agree some groups will only be happy with Israel out. But that is the beauty behind this plan. You can now weed out those groups and deal with them individually. How do you deal with them individually you make the PLO responsible for their actions. Sooner or later they will wear out their welcome and the people will turn on them. Right now both sides are together because they have a common cause, get Israel out of the occupied land. Once you take away that commonality you will quickly see a difference being made.

Read the PLO charter. It refuses to recognize Israel and calls for the destruction of it! If you go to the poeace table right now, then the terrorists claim victory and are emboldened. Let me put this in terms you might understand: In the 1990s a group of Al Qaida operatives detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center. The Clinton Administration called it a criminal matter, arrested and prosecuted the terrorist cell. No ramifications for the masterminds of the attack. They grow emboldened and plan a bigger attack. 9/11!

You can no negotiate from a position of weakness. If Israel caves now, the terrorist will only get worse. You are naive if you think otherwise. Here: You are my neighbor. I want to park in your driveway. You tell me no. I punch you in your face. You then negotiate to let me park there. Next time I want something from you, guess what? I am gonna deck you. If you had first hit me back to show me you are of equal or greater might, I would think twice before doing it again.

[shartley]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
you're unbelievable.

by the logic of your post we should never arrest criminals of ANY kind because that'll only make them mad and make them commit more crimes.

unreal, WTF color is the sky in your world kid?

you're not only a Useful Idiot, you're dangerous as well.

thank God we don't have people like you prosecuting this war. we'd cease to exist as a nation in about a week.

I have said that time and again in this thread.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Ehhhhh WRONG.

Both Clinton and his flunky Madelein not-too-Albright had bin laden handed to them on a platter not once but twice and they didn't take it.

They knew EXACTLY when and where he and his cabal were going to be, including the flight number and they chose to NOT go after him.

Maddy not-too-albright even admitted this a few weeks ago on Meet The Depressed or Deface the Nation can't remember which show.

So yeah, I do blame Slick for not gettin UBL when he had the chance. Guess he was too busy gettin jobbed instead of doin his damned job.

Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

The CIA was tracking him via his satillite phone. When they knew the flight he was on, well mechanical problems happen. Act of God and all that good stuff. If Clinton would have hunted him down and killed him and his leadership the way the Iraelis do and Bush is doing now, 9/11 WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!!!


Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

Convict? I don't think so. Kill Yes! He is dieing? So am I...of Old Age! He can't be that bad off if he is still able to move and elude capture.

BTW, I think Clinton was an incredible politician. He was also a very lucky president. That being said, he was a poor leader and a worse president. His political instincts and his teflon coating may make him one of the most popular of the recen past presidents, but I feel that history will not be so kind to him! That is all I have to say about him!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Meet the Press and Face the Nation are NOT conservative shows. LOL

I do agree that the NAME CALLING should cease immediatly. Name calling and profanity are signs of a weak mind. If you have to resort to that level to make a point, then you really did not have a point to begin with! That's all I have to say about that! *In Best Forrest Gump Voice*


Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

Because Bin Laden has been careful ever since Clinton tried to get him with a few cruise missles. Killing Bin Laden or even capturing him would have been much easier before Bin Laden learned that US agencies were listening in and tracking him via his satellite phones. You never get a second chance for a suprise attack!

BTW Bin Laden's number three guy was arrested by Pakistanis upon receiving his location from the US Intelligence Community. The US only paid $27million to a tipster for his location. So yes, Thank you to the Pakistanis for the use of their SWAT team!

Had Clinton never fire those cruise missles at Bin Laden and made a serious attempt to kill or capture him they just might have done so. His half hearted attempt tipped our hand to a very dangerous man!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I was starting to wonder! There have been some pro war rallying marches in the United States with people waving the US Flag with the Israeli flag (heard about it on the news). People can rally in any way they want as far as I am concerned but I think it is in the best interest of the pro war movement in the U.S. to limit foriegn flags being carried. This allows the other side to point and say that our military is being used to carry out the agenda of other countries. It is just as damaging as when peace rallys burn the American flag.

Ditto! Wave the American Flag in America!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Because Bin Laden has been careful ever since Clinton tried to get him with a few cruise missles. Killing Bin Laden or even capturing him would have been much easier before Bin Laden learned that US agencies were listening in and tracking him via his satellite phones. You never get a second chance for a suprise attack!

Had Clinton never fire those cruise missles at Bin Laden and made a serious attempt to kill or capture him they just might have done so. His half hearted attempt tipped our hand to a very dangerous man!

I believe you like to say that hindsight is 20/20? You got my main point. People want to blame all of the foriegn problems that we have on the democrats the same way others try to blame all of our economic woes on the republicans. Never mind the fact that our economic woes started prior to Bush taking office and that foriegn problems strech back for to prior to 1776. During the time line we have had Republican and Democrat presidents and both have supported regimes that switched from allies to enemies, etc. Am I going to say we never should have recognized China just because it was a Republican President (Nixon) who brought it about? This over simplification of issues due to party loyalties annoys me.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

It ain't propoganda if it's fact.

why haven't we caught UBL while W is in office? you answered it yourself, he's apparently very good at hiding in caves.

and as for your assertion that someone walked into slick's office and said we can grab bin laden, it happened TWICE.

and he refused BOTH TIMES. I found the quote from all-not-too-bright:

on why they didn't grab UBL when he was handed to them the second time in 1996 when he was kicked out of the Sudan along with a bunch of his lackeys and sent on his way to Qatar:

The quote is from Meet The Press with Tim Russert

Albright:

"In hindsight, there probably should have been a different decision made than to let him leave the Sudan."

Russert responds:

"Why didn't you capture him when he arrived in Qatar"

Albright:

"I don't have an answer to that."

propoganda my backside.

[Collegeboy]

What reason did Clinton have letting UBL go? It sure would help his political career if he would have been the guy to bring in the guy who bombed the apartments, who has done all those things UBL has done. So saying Clinton only looks out for himself has just shot your argument. Now let me ask this. Since capturing UBL would have helped Clinton, why did he let him go.


1de. It isn't bias to get information about life in the camps from people who live there. If I was to ask them their opinion on Israel, and use just their opinion to form my opinion that would be bias.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I believe you like to say that hindsight is 20/20? You got my main point. People want to blame all of the foriegn problems that we have on the democrats the same way others try to blame all of our economic woes on the republicans. Never mind the fact that our economic woes started prior to Bush taking office and that foriegn problems strech back for to prior to 1776. During the time line we have had Republican and Democrat presidents and both have supported regimes that switched from allies to enemies, etc. Am I going to say we never should have recognized China just because it was a Republican President (Nixon) who brought it about? This over simplification of issues due to party loyalties annoys me.

I never said Democrat or Republican. I said Clinton. I truly believe that Clinton was of the party of Clinton and didn't care about anything else. He was a very selfish man! I know hindsight is 20/20. I was merely pointing out why Osama is so hard to find now! He has had lots of time to practice being very careful. We just need to find someone who will sell him out like they did Khalid Muhammad! That's the American way, we outspend our opponent!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
What reason did Clinton have letting UBL go? It sure would help his political career if he would have been the guy to bring in the guy who bombed the apartments, who has done all those things UBL has done. So saying Clinton only looks out for himself has just shot your argument. Now let me ask this. Since capturing UBL would have helped Clinton, why did he let him go.

Why? It would have been difficult. It would have required political capital to convince an "ally" to hand over Osama. Doing nothing and staying out of it was so much easier and simpler.


1de. It isn't bias to get information about life in the camps from people who live there. If I was to ask them their opinion on Israel, and use just their opinion to form my opinion that would be bias.

Really? Your arguments against Israel and rewarding the terrorists with a settlement seems kind of biased to me!

You know what? You never answered my point about the Paelsitian Refugee Camps in Jordon. Why are they so horrid too if they are not under Israeli Control. You also have not apologized for using your term "concentration camp" in reference to ALL refugee camps! Could it be that the Arabs can't stand the Palestinians either? Maybe they want the Palestinians to have their own country so that they can throw them out of theirs? If ever the Palestinians establish a country of their own, it will be very interesting to see how much aid their country receives from their Arab brethren.

[Collegeboy]

I will not apologize for someone being to pc. The term concentration camp has been used way before Hitler used it.

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

OBL was captured ready to be turned over. Get past your hatred of Clinton to see what is in front of you. If Clinton knew he could have prosecuted OBL he would have.

I told you why the conditions in the camps are harsh.

[1stdeadeye]

To compare a reufgee camp admionistered by the UN to a death camp of WWII is just wrong! Where are the "showers"? Where are the mass executions?

What about the Jordanian Camps? Are those "Concentration Camps" too? You must have been real, um..."close" to those Palestinian girls to have your head so twisted.

Yes, Clinton would have had to expend political capital to take Osama to prosecute him. He did not have the courage to do it. He let Osama walk. End of story. His own Secretary of State said so!

As for PC. That is just ridiculous. I guess we can say the ghettos of America are our concentration camps then.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I will not apologize for someone being to pc. The term concentration camp has been used way before Hitler used it.

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

OBL was captured ready to be turned over. Get past your hatred of Clinton to see what is in front of you. If Clinton knew he could have prosecuted OBL he would have.

I told you why the conditions in the camps are harsh.

Interesting. I guess I will break out the dictionary to support calling you some names that “technically” may be correct even though I am sure you would argue that they are not. The refuge camps are NOT concentration camps sorry pal. I can list prisons that would fit the definition you just posted, but they too are NOT concentration camps. I can also list some very rural communities in the United States that fit the bottom definition, but they are NOT concentration camps either.

We know why you are calling the camps concentration camps, and you are now wanting to support that by using a dictionary… and you wonder why we say your knowledge is only from books?

As for any hatred for Clinton… LOL How many times do we have to post that we do not hate him? I have seen 1st and myself come right out and say the very opposite. But you seem to not read very well… oh hold on, that is what you accuse everyone else of. Interesting.

If you think Clinton didn’t know he COULD prosecute OSL than you are calling Clinton an idiot. I would rather be called selfish than an idiot, but that is just me I guess. Funny how those who would support someone to the end would be so quick to call them idiots.. and their entire staff as well.

As 1st stated, it was simply easier to let him go. Clinton loses neither way, thus it was about what was best for Clinton. If doing something may be good for you, but it involves effort, but doing nothing is not bad for you, and requires nothing on your part… hmmmmmmmm