The terrorists had been planning this for quite some time. This attack would have happened no matter who was in office, and the only thing Bush is head and shoulders above is a shit flinging monkey.Horseman 77 wrote:
Our current President stands head and shoulders over most world current leaders,
He leads and is not afraid to. He doesn't fear our enemies he make them fear us.
There are more Qualified and Smarter men in the USA but he has the job.
Our last President couldn't even masturbate to completion or with out being caught.
The sad part is, That it was his sole response to the First WTC attack.
Had he actually chose to lead his country instead of playing with his little jimmy there is a good chance we wouldn't be in this mess.
Many people across the world had to die through his neglect and failure, unwillingness or in ability to act.
At least this man did something and they haven't been back.
As for France Supplying necessary Arms and ammunition to the Colonies in the Revolution. Almost every Colonist was Armed at the outset and was familiar with his weapon and its employment. Their Arms Primarily Kentucky and Pennsylvania Rifles were far superior to any standing Armies weapon at the time in Range and Accuracy.
Tho somewhat slower to load than a Brown Bess musket. It leant itself well to ambush sniping and "Tip and Run" tactics used in the Frontier areas where most of the Battles were fought. We never met the enemy on his terms.
I think the whole point is that dont whine about a country selling arms to terrorists if your country did the same...
True, but it doesen't justify the US supporting/being terrorists either...vedds wrote:
Doesnt justify the french supporting/being terroristsTehSeraphim wrote:
Hell, how about the Contras incident? Or Noriega? Training Osama Bin Laden? Oops.
Horseman, I point you to a nicely detailed account of the Revolutionary War (which you need to brush up on despite your mediocre knowledge of colonial weaponry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Without Lafayette's help, America would've lost and lost hard. Military supplies were in the most part imported from France; American Revolutionaries had no way of making their own gunpowder. The French officially entered the war in 1778, joined by Spain in 1779 and the Netherlands in 1780.
As for your ludicrous defense of GWB...
Clinton reacted well to the WTC 1 bombing; he captured the people responsible and they are currently behind bars (Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah. By capturing them, Clinton had prevented them from further attacking the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the Washington Israeli Embassy, the George Washington bridge, and LAX and the Boston airport. (Robert Oakley's report "Planned Jan. 2000 Attacks Failed or were Thwarted" in the Dec. 24, 2000 Washington Post)
What can be said of GWB's response to 9/11? Osama bin Laden is still hiding out, more than likely planning further attacks, plus we invaded Iraq on false grounds that had nothing to do with 9/11. Deception!
Clinton assigned Richard Clarke to develop anti-terror strategies to combat and break up Al Qaeda cells. Clarke produced a paper on Dec. 20, 2000 detailing the entire plan; freeze their assets, stop their funding through fake charities, and aid the governments that have constant trouble with them, plus scale up covert Ops in Afghanistan and help fund the Northern Alliance.
Bush is sworn in, and Condi Rice eventually lets Clarke stay on as head of counterterrorism. Clarke's plan to take out al Qaeda went unheeded as the new cabinet decided to focus more on missile defense and force restructuring. Clarke is still largely ignored despite the amounting threats of terror uncovered by the Hart-Rudman Commission. Bush was spending his time vacationing while Clarke was avidly trying to get his message out to him.
Then 9/11 happened. Just a few days after Bush's cabinet finally decided to hear Clarke out. Do your fucking research before you go spouting off nonsense. Bush is an idiot and seems to only be interested in his own investments, whereas the Clinton years were pretty much nothing but prosperity. Don't deny that on the sole fact that he lied under oath.
Please find and read:
May 19 2002, New York Daily News
Feb. 28, 2002, "How 9/11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept." New York Times
December 30, 2001 "Planning for Terror but Failing to Act" New York Times
March 10, 2003 "The 9/10 President" The New Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Without Lafayette's help, America would've lost and lost hard. Military supplies were in the most part imported from France; American Revolutionaries had no way of making their own gunpowder. The French officially entered the war in 1778, joined by Spain in 1779 and the Netherlands in 1780.
As for your ludicrous defense of GWB...
Clinton reacted well to the WTC 1 bombing; he captured the people responsible and they are currently behind bars (Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah. By capturing them, Clinton had prevented them from further attacking the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the Washington Israeli Embassy, the George Washington bridge, and LAX and the Boston airport. (Robert Oakley's report "Planned Jan. 2000 Attacks Failed or were Thwarted" in the Dec. 24, 2000 Washington Post)
What can be said of GWB's response to 9/11? Osama bin Laden is still hiding out, more than likely planning further attacks, plus we invaded Iraq on false grounds that had nothing to do with 9/11. Deception!
Clinton assigned Richard Clarke to develop anti-terror strategies to combat and break up Al Qaeda cells. Clarke produced a paper on Dec. 20, 2000 detailing the entire plan; freeze their assets, stop their funding through fake charities, and aid the governments that have constant trouble with them, plus scale up covert Ops in Afghanistan and help fund the Northern Alliance.
Bush is sworn in, and Condi Rice eventually lets Clarke stay on as head of counterterrorism. Clarke's plan to take out al Qaeda went unheeded as the new cabinet decided to focus more on missile defense and force restructuring. Clarke is still largely ignored despite the amounting threats of terror uncovered by the Hart-Rudman Commission. Bush was spending his time vacationing while Clarke was avidly trying to get his message out to him.
Then 9/11 happened. Just a few days after Bush's cabinet finally decided to hear Clarke out. Do your fucking research before you go spouting off nonsense. Bush is an idiot and seems to only be interested in his own investments, whereas the Clinton years were pretty much nothing but prosperity. Don't deny that on the sole fact that he lied under oath.
Please find and read:
May 19 2002, New York Daily News
Feb. 28, 2002, "How 9/11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept." New York Times
December 30, 2001 "Planning for Terror but Failing to Act" New York Times
March 10, 2003 "The 9/10 President" The New Republic
Touche! Very well said.Marconius wrote:
Horseman, I point you to a nicely detailed account of the Revolutionary War (which you need to brush up on despite your mediocre knowledge of colonial weaponry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Without Lafayette's help, America would've lost and lost hard. Military supplies were in the most part imported from France; American Revolutionaries had no way of making their own gunpowder. The French officially entered the war in 1778, joined by Spain in 1779 and the Netherlands in 1780.
As for your ludicrous defense of GWB...
Clinton reacted well to the WTC 1 bombing; he captured the people responsible and they are currently behind bars (Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah. By capturing them, Clinton had prevented them from further attacking the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the Washington Israeli Embassy, the George Washington bridge, and LAX and the Boston airport. (Robert Oakley's report "Planned Jan. 2000 Attacks Failed or were Thwarted" in the Dec. 24, 2000 Washington Post)
What can be said of GWB's response to 9/11? Osama bin Laden is still hiding out, more than likely planning further attacks, plus we invaded Iraq on false grounds that had nothing to do with 9/11. Deception!
Clinton assigned Richard Clarke to develop anti-terror strategies to combat and break up Al Qaeda cells. Clarke produced a paper on Dec. 20, 2000 detailing the entire plan; freeze their assets, stop their funding through fake charities, and aid the governments that have constant trouble with them, plus scale up covert Ops in Afghanistan and help fund the Northern Alliance.
Bush is sworn in, and Condi Rice eventually lets Clarke stay on as head of counterterrorism. Clarke's plan to take out al Qaeda went unheeded as the new cabinet decided to focus more on missile defense and force restructuring. Clarke is still largely ignored despite the amounting threats of terror uncovered by the Hart-Rudman Commission. Bush was spending his time vacationing while Clarke was avidly trying to get his message out to him.
Then 9/11 happened. Just a few days after Bush's cabinet finally decided to hear Clarke out. Do your fucking research before you go spouting off nonsense. Bush is an idiot and seems to only be interested in his own investments, whereas the Clinton years were pretty much nothing but prosperity. Don't deny that on the sole fact that he lied under oath.
Please find and read:
May 19 2002, New York Daily News
Feb. 28, 2002, "How 9/11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept." New York Times
December 30, 2001 "Planning for Terror but Failing to Act" New York Times
March 10, 2003 "The 9/10 President" The New Republic
Thank you. I try to stay well-informed, very much unlike Horseman here. People just need to realize that Clinton was on top of counterterrorism, and the Bush cabinet just largely ignored it all until it came back and bit them in the ass with the deaths of 3000 american civilians. It just astounds me how Clinton quickly nabbed not one but THREE guilty suspects of the WTC 1 attack, and Bush can't find one old 6'4" man on dialysis.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Touche! Very well said.
Boy you type alot But here are some acts of terror ( the ones I can recall )
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Pan Am flt. 007
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
Provided by Burt10099
I can remeber the President and his Response to Every action except for Mr. Masturbater.
Who only jerked off.
8 attacks, Half of them during his Adminastration and he didnt do DICK.
( he did burn to death a bunch of people in Waco, that took balls )
All to secure his Legacy.
I will go one better and say 911 was an attack that never would have happened if we had responded at all in any messure.
The FBI captured the 93 bombers and it was no doing of clintons.
I know you don't live here but do i have to point out to you they haven't come back Qsoma is probebly dead. But if he isn't he hasn't been up to much.
It is only my " opinion" that France was a help but changed the way the WAR was fought. You really mean to tell me that Only France could get the Colonies Gunpowder. Thats really the corner stone of your argument. No Country brings us Marijuana but there sure is lots of it here
I love how your opinion Becomes fact.
I try not to insult but you do it in spades Why is this? Anything ... Wrong ???
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Pan Am flt. 007
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
Provided by Burt10099
I can remeber the President and his Response to Every action except for Mr. Masturbater.
Who only jerked off.
8 attacks, Half of them during his Adminastration and he didnt do DICK.
( he did burn to death a bunch of people in Waco, that took balls )
All to secure his Legacy.
I will go one better and say 911 was an attack that never would have happened if we had responded at all in any messure.
The FBI captured the 93 bombers and it was no doing of clintons.
I know you don't live here but do i have to point out to you they haven't come back Qsoma is probebly dead. But if he isn't he hasn't been up to much.
It is only my " opinion" that France was a help but changed the way the WAR was fought. You really mean to tell me that Only France could get the Colonies Gunpowder. Thats really the corner stone of your argument. No Country brings us Marijuana but there sure is lots of it here
I love how your opinion Becomes fact.
I try not to insult but you do it in spades Why is this? Anything ... Wrong ???
I feel Your site dosen't back up your point. it Varifys my opinion as very valid however.
Horseman 77 wrote:
( he did burn to death a bunch of people in Waco, that took balls )
What you just said is directly contradictory. The FBI was responsible for capturing 93 bombers, but Clinton was personally responsible for Waco? Why is it you blame Clinton for Waco, yet in your other thread (directly about Waco) you blame it on the FBI and the cops. Sounds to me like you're trying to worsen the image of Clinton.Horseman77 wrote:
The FBI captured the 93 bombers and it was no doing of clintons.
Where exactly is "here"? If you're talking about the U.S.A., check again because I think California is still part of America. (Oh wait, evil Clinton probably kicked them out of America during his evil rule.)Horseman77 wrote:
I know you don't live here
Maybe he is dead, but if not, I doubt he would announce he is alive anyways. He knows that we would be all over him. My guess is that if he were to resurface, it would be in the form of another terrorist attack.Horseman77 wrote:
but do i have to point out to you they haven't come back Qsoma is probebly dead. But if he isn't he hasn't been up to much.
No, but France was the only one willing to give us gunpowder. No one else dared to join an allegiance against the most powerful force in the world at that time.Horseman77 wrote:
You really mean to tell me that Only France could get the Colonies Gunpowder.
Mexico and South American countries bring us loads of Marijuana and other drugs. There's news of it almost every month. "5,000 lbs. of Marijuana intercepted from Brazil into the U.S." etc.Horseman77 wrote:
No Country brings us Marijuana but there sure is lots of it here
And now I will put a smiley face in my message so I am not misinterpreted as a flamer.
Yes, YOU are wrong, and constantly. You are providing no proof to your statements and are just going by biased "memory." I offered facts, proof to back it up, and resources for you to peruse to find out how wrong you are. You obviously have neglected to read them before posting, and are therefore still uninformed and thusly still wrong. Plus you are generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level and are showing no signs of critical thinking on these issues.
After the French and Indian War, France had a major presence and was a major ally to the Americans as they had already had a taste of fighting the British. Gunpowder was imported, and therefore had to get to the Americans past the English embargoes and blockades generated by the American dissent. Your opinions don't mean anything at all when clear and present facts are laid out in front of you.
Please read the info contained in the link I provided.
Did you only read half of what I wrote? 9/11 was Bush's fault, and all of his cabinet is to blame for not heeding Clarke's calls of urgency. Had Gore been elected, Clarke's anti-al Qaeda measures would've been enacted in a heartbeat, and 9/11 would never have happened. I have proof of this, and I provided it.
8 attacks? Sorry, I count only 6 that occurred when Clinton was president (1992 - 2000) Let's break them down, shall we? Rather than just (again) spout them off with no critical explanation to any of them.
WTC 1 - Occurred 38 days after Clinton took office. Clinton responds by arresting those responsible for the attacks. (As I detailed in my post)
Libyan Bombing of Pan Am 007 - Case study Here It was the last attack by Qaddafi's terrorism push. Any further policy on Libya would've been a waste of resources.
Khobar towers - Clinton "outed" Iranian intelligence agents, but didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died. It's not nothing, but it wasn't a tough response either. Possibly done to keep peace with Iran.
Kenya/Tanzania Bombings - Clinton responds by striking targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation with bombs and Tomahawk missiles. This was heralded by Newt Gingrich, who said "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately only an aspirin factory.
USS Cole - Clinton responds by sending Richard Clarke after al Qaeda. Clarke investigates them and writes up a paper on how to destroy them, which is ignored by Bush, eventually instigating 9/11.
Hmm, seems like Clinton did something for everything. I win, you lose unless you can prove otherwise.
What 93 bombers are you referring to? What years were they apprehended? Under whose provided intelligence were they acting to apprehend said bombers?
Critical thinking, sir! Please, as it is the essence of debate!
After the French and Indian War, France had a major presence and was a major ally to the Americans as they had already had a taste of fighting the British. Gunpowder was imported, and therefore had to get to the Americans past the English embargoes and blockades generated by the American dissent. Your opinions don't mean anything at all when clear and present facts are laid out in front of you.
Please read the info contained in the link I provided.
Did you only read half of what I wrote? 9/11 was Bush's fault, and all of his cabinet is to blame for not heeding Clarke's calls of urgency. Had Gore been elected, Clarke's anti-al Qaeda measures would've been enacted in a heartbeat, and 9/11 would never have happened. I have proof of this, and I provided it.
8 attacks? Sorry, I count only 6 that occurred when Clinton was president (1992 - 2000) Let's break them down, shall we? Rather than just (again) spout them off with no critical explanation to any of them.
WTC 1 - Occurred 38 days after Clinton took office. Clinton responds by arresting those responsible for the attacks. (As I detailed in my post)
Libyan Bombing of Pan Am 007 - Case study Here It was the last attack by Qaddafi's terrorism push. Any further policy on Libya would've been a waste of resources.
Khobar towers - Clinton "outed" Iranian intelligence agents, but didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died. It's not nothing, but it wasn't a tough response either. Possibly done to keep peace with Iran.
Kenya/Tanzania Bombings - Clinton responds by striking targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation with bombs and Tomahawk missiles. This was heralded by Newt Gingrich, who said "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately only an aspirin factory.
USS Cole - Clinton responds by sending Richard Clarke after al Qaeda. Clarke investigates them and writes up a paper on how to destroy them, which is ignored by Bush, eventually instigating 9/11.
Hmm, seems like Clinton did something for everything. I win, you lose unless you can prove otherwise.
What 93 bombers are you referring to? What years were they apprehended? Under whose provided intelligence were they acting to apprehend said bombers?
Critical thinking, sir! Please, as it is the essence of debate!
Marconius, I have to agree with Horseman. You type a hell of a lot.
I'm not quite sure what your (Marconius, Horseman) referring to as
1. I'm to young to remember the attacks you guys talked about
2. I'm not an American
But I'd just like to remind you guys that France is/was/tries to be America's allies. Who was one of the key members of the Coalition in the FIRST gulf war (15 years ago)?
Here's a list: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, FRANCE, GERMANY, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.
--
--
One more point. Recently, a US missle hit Pakistan, killing (claimed) 16 civillians. The US claims they killed al-Qaeda's no.2, but indications (according to the local editorial) are that they goofed again.
16 civillians. Bleedingly obvious that it was the US who did it. Now how about the close, young, Islamic relatives of those 16 civilians? They're going to have a bitter taste in their mouths, no?
America is as big a breeder of terrorism (albeit indirectly) as any other country.
I'm not quite sure what your (Marconius, Horseman) referring to as
1. I'm to young to remember the attacks you guys talked about
2. I'm not an American
But I'd just like to remind you guys that France is/was/tries to be America's allies. Who was one of the key members of the Coalition in the FIRST gulf war (15 years ago)?
Here's a list: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, FRANCE, GERMANY, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.
--
Well, he's as good as dead. How can he plan anything, if he's on DIALYSIS? He can't piss in a pot, for goodness' sake! In any case, Osama is not al-Qaeda's brain. He is its mouth and its wallet.Horseman77 wrote:
but do i have to point out to you they haven't come back Qsoma is probebly dead. But if he isn't he hasn't been up to much.
--
One more point. Recently, a US missle hit Pakistan, killing (claimed) 16 civillians. The US claims they killed al-Qaeda's no.2, but indications (according to the local editorial) are that they goofed again.
16 civillians. Bleedingly obvious that it was the US who did it. Now how about the close, young, Islamic relatives of those 16 civilians? They're going to have a bitter taste in their mouths, no?
America is as big a breeder of terrorism (albeit indirectly) as any other country.
Last edited by Spark (2006-01-18 18:50:26)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I like most of it but it will take some reading to fact check. My point was If we dont want Drugs and we get them " USA ,The Worlds Largest Power " becuase a profit is to be made. Would it not stand to reason that Some enterprising person would get Gunpowder to those who wanted to buy it in 1776 ?
The Tactic most American commanders used with American Troops was to instruct them.
" we need three shots from each of you, than you can go " That sounds like Tip and Run. Not even Hit and Run. Would you really want to try and trade blows with the most Fear'd army of its time. I read that American troops really fear the British Bayonet and it was difficult to get them to hold their Ground in the face of it.
Also only the French issuse Charville musket accepted one. Many americans were not so Equiped.
It is a known fact British Officers were always targeted and Tracked by american rifleman even while at lesuire. They had to give up the sport of Fox Hunting while in the Colonies. I never Said France didnt Make a difference I said another kind of War would have developed an they would have decamped eventually.
Also The only way I know have stopped the 911 Attacks Short of Carrying a WAR on to Their soil and having them Fight there. Which we are now doing. Would be to have installed a AA missile battery of some sort in NYC. Airport security has again lapsed. I accidently brought ammo to The Keys, no problem. The Fact that Bush kept members of clintons staff tells me he might have been interested in keeping people who were expirenced and up to speed instead of installing cronies which most admins do. Ya you busted me on the Waco thing but I still cant believe this happend on US soil and as Pres he could have stoped it. I feel something was really fishy about that whole thing.
The Tactic most American commanders used with American Troops was to instruct them.
" we need three shots from each of you, than you can go " That sounds like Tip and Run. Not even Hit and Run. Would you really want to try and trade blows with the most Fear'd army of its time. I read that American troops really fear the British Bayonet and it was difficult to get them to hold their Ground in the face of it.
Also only the French issuse Charville musket accepted one. Many americans were not so Equiped.
It is a known fact British Officers were always targeted and Tracked by american rifleman even while at lesuire. They had to give up the sport of Fox Hunting while in the Colonies. I never Said France didnt Make a difference I said another kind of War would have developed an they would have decamped eventually.
Also The only way I know have stopped the 911 Attacks Short of Carrying a WAR on to Their soil and having them Fight there. Which we are now doing. Would be to have installed a AA missile battery of some sort in NYC. Airport security has again lapsed. I accidently brought ammo to The Keys, no problem. The Fact that Bush kept members of clintons staff tells me he might have been interested in keeping people who were expirenced and up to speed instead of installing cronies which most admins do. Ya you busted me on the Waco thing but I still cant believe this happend on US soil and as Pres he could have stoped it. I feel something was really fishy about that whole thing.
Sorry I'm so prolific. It's just an issue that I know a lot about. It's complex and serious, and it needs to be backed up somehow. And I have a decent background in Poli Sci.
Nah, It's okMarconius wrote:
Sorry I'm so prolific. It's just an issue that I know a lot about. It's complex and serious, and it needs to be backed up somehow. And I have a decent background in Poli Sci.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I can never understand the constant ragging of France I even made a post about it. I always assume it to be "humor". ?
So did I, until I see posts like this:Horseman 77 wrote:
I can never understand the constant ragging of France I even made a post about it. I always assume it to be "humor". ?
and... (little off, but same vein)FoodNipple101 wrote:
Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
This is when I get really worried about the ignorance/intelligence of Americans.cwkatl wrote:
For all of you pinko commie liberal faggots, i bet your all from america or france, and are at least under the age of 18............... and also what ever you say is full of shit, cite your sources like the guy who copied and pasted that carbon dioxide bullshit, wtf, america always helps every1 out, and if u hate america that badly and you live here, stop BITCHING AND MOVE OUT FO OUR COUNTRY, and do eevry1 a favor, thankyou and have a nice day you stupid socialist commie liberal bitchez
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Hear hear on that. Spark, 51% of our nation is like cwkatl.
Thankfully people are smartening up, especially after it was uncovered that Bush broke our laws with unlawful wiretapping, the Abramoff scandal, and the admittance of "mistakes" made prior to the Iraq invasion.
Anyways, I think there is a great amount of info in this thread that proves that France and French people are not bad because they "support Terrorist states" and that the US is guilty of exactly the same charge.
Thankfully people are smartening up, especially after it was uncovered that Bush broke our laws with unlawful wiretapping, the Abramoff scandal, and the admittance of "mistakes" made prior to the Iraq invasion.
Anyways, I think there is a great amount of info in this thread that proves that France and French people are not bad because they "support Terrorist states" and that the US is guilty of exactly the same charge.
Last edited by Marconius (2006-01-18 19:09:47)
I only wish that isn't true (first fact). The problem is the MEDIA. People are so brainwashed (in America) nowadays that (because every TV station is neocon-controlled, as far as I know) they believe what ever is spewed out at them.
Once people start to speak up...
Once people start to speak up...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That's why I only trust news sources from outside the US (BBC, etc). Everybody just has to put a spin towards their own agenda here...
How about paying 14c per airline ticket extra in the 80's to get inpenetrable cockpit doors? I assure you, there would be no chance of that plane hitting the WTC.Horseman 77 wrote:
Also The only way I know have stopped the 911 Attacks Short of Carrying a WAR on to Their soil and having them Fight there. Which we are now doing. Would be to have installed a AA missile battery of some sort in NYC. Airport security has again lapsed. I accidently brought ammo to The Keys, no problem. The Fact that Bush kept members of clintons staff tells me he might have been interested in keeping people who were expirenced and up to speed instead of installing cronies which most admins do. Ya you busted me on the Waco thing but I still cant believe this happend on US soil and as Pres he could have stoped it. I feel something was really fishy about that whole thing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Just to expand on my previous post, there was essentially NOTHING shown against the Iraq War in the weeks leading up to the fact.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I was not debating this. Personally, I have no problem with France, just debating some of the things you said in your post.Horseman 77 wrote:
I can never understand the constant ragging of France I even made a post about it. I always assume it to be "humor". ?
my personal take on Bush's reaction to the 09/11 attacks ? The public wanted blood ( preferably middle eastern ) and he complied. And it fitted his agenda perfectly. He could invade iraq and secure access to the oil fields, remove Saddam ( who the US had helped get to power a couple of years ago ) and retain his image of a Pres who takes action and defends his country. How many innocent, law-abiding iraqis have been killed "accidentally" by US forces since the war began ? I don't have specific numbers, but I dare say it is considerably more than 3,000.
so, what did Bush achieve ? Sure, the terrorists haven't been back since 09/11, but why should they ? Bush sent 170,000 troops to Iraq... It is far more easy for Al'Quaeda to hit the US abroad. They don't have to do it in New York City.
According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ , 2,219 US troops have been KIA in iraq so far. Looking at the figures for 2005, we will most likely reach 3,000 US troops KIA by the end of 2006.
Is it all worth it ? Bush says it is, but he doesn't have sons or daughters who serve there. Could the 09/11 attacks have been prevented with the right intelligence ? Most likely. Who is to blame for that ? GWB.
So he is basically asking the Marines to die for the failures of his administration.
You cannot fight terrorism with an army. If Bush had invested only half of what the war on terror has cost the US so far in the intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies, anti-american terrorism would be a non-factor. And there would still be something left for health care and public education reform...
Sure, the iraqis are "free" now and can enjoy the pleasures of a democratic government...lol...judging by the speed at which iraqi civilians are dieing in suicide / bombing attacks, this country will be almost empty by 2020...
so, what did Bush achieve ? Sure, the terrorists haven't been back since 09/11, but why should they ? Bush sent 170,000 troops to Iraq... It is far more easy for Al'Quaeda to hit the US abroad. They don't have to do it in New York City.
According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ , 2,219 US troops have been KIA in iraq so far. Looking at the figures for 2005, we will most likely reach 3,000 US troops KIA by the end of 2006.
Is it all worth it ? Bush says it is, but he doesn't have sons or daughters who serve there. Could the 09/11 attacks have been prevented with the right intelligence ? Most likely. Who is to blame for that ? GWB.
So he is basically asking the Marines to die for the failures of his administration.
You cannot fight terrorism with an army. If Bush had invested only half of what the war on terror has cost the US so far in the intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies, anti-american terrorism would be a non-factor. And there would still be something left for health care and public education reform...
Sure, the iraqis are "free" now and can enjoy the pleasures of a democratic government...lol...judging by the speed at which iraqi civilians are dieing in suicide / bombing attacks, this country will be almost empty by 2020...
You stupid nazi, some Iraqui are thinking same about you, so stop being racist and start shutting you mouth upFoodNipple101 wrote:
Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
well said. didnt nearly every country sells their weapons to more dangerous countries? russia is ok, at least they only issue AK's not WMDs, but france does sell some of their weapons to the wrong ppl, then the enemy studies the technology and builds upon a better weapon than thatNebular wrote:
You stupid nazi, some Iraqui are thinking same about you, so stop being racist and start shutting you mouth upFoodNipple101 wrote:
Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
Yeah, the french military operation was called "Operation Daguet" but like 95% of the nations which took part in the war our soldiers never encountered any Iraqi soldiers.But I'd just like to remind you guys that France is/was/tries to be America's allies. Who was one of the key members of the Coalition in the FIRST gulf war (15 years ago)?
Here's a list: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, FRANCE, GERMANY, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.