Johnny is calling the election

[FerretallicA]

hahaha, well my wages have gone up, so lick my nuts

Literal LOL

 

[Mark]

BULLSHIT. There was an attemp by al-queada in 1993 to blow up the twin towers, that, along with numerous attacks on US bases by terrorists around the world was ignored by Clinton, who chose easy options with foreign policy. He ignored Terrorism and Al-Queada as threats, and ignored realists and conservatives who said that the biggest threat to US hegemony after the COld War wouldnt come from a state, but from rogue states, terrorism and WMD's. This ignorance lead directly to the attacks in 2001. Since then, no attacks on US soil, Why? Procative policy.

ORLY?

Here's an excerpt from an article from the Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

One key difference between Clinton and Bush -- people involved in the bombing of the WTC on Clinton's watch were actually caught; Bush still hasn't caught Bin Laden, and has said himself that he doesn't think much about him.

 

[Shannow]

Yep, the outgoing administration urged Rice to continue drone flights to look for/get Osama, but the Repubs blew it off.

 

[Shannow]

Giving into public opinion is often the worse thing a leader can do, most people are dumb fucks, so if you listen to dumb fucks, you become one.

Thus the irresponsible tax cuts that John Dubya Howard has announced.

 

[Goreripper]

I really dont care what you guys think, Neocons were writing about the treat to the US as far back as 91.

If that's the case, why didn't Bush Snr. do something about it? After the first Gulf War, rebels within Iraq wanted the US to help them in getting rid of Saddam, but Bush refused and withdrew all American support. The Republican Guard regrouped and massacred thousands in the south of Iraq. This has nothing to do with terrorism, of course, because the Gulf War wasn't related the terror, but back when Bush Snr. could have counted on full support from the Arab states to attack Iraq, all he did was push them out of Kuwait. The Neo-Cons were so embarassed by this, they got his son elected to finish the job. He still hasn't finished it.

 

[Stonewall]

I guess the difference there Gore, is that Bush Snr respected the role of the UN and the mandate which was to protect Kuwait's sovereignty.

 

[Shannow]

Bill Clinton was dead scared of negative public opinion, so when he wasnt fucking fat chicks in the oval office

Better than what Dubya was (allegedly) up to with Gannon/Guckert in the same office.

At least in Oz, only the foreign minister dresses in drag.

 

[Goreripper]

I guess the difference there Gore, is that Bush Snr respected the role of the UN and the mandate which was to protect Kuwait's sovereignty.

He also wasn't a strawman for the Neo-Con agenda.

 

[Dän]

If that's the case, why didn't Bush Snr. do something about it? After the first Gulf War, rebels within Iraq wanted the US to help them in getting rid of Saddam, but Bush refused and withdrew all American support. The Republican Guard regrouped and massacred thousands in the south of Iraq. This has nothing to do with terrorism, of course, because the Gulf War wasn't related the terror, but back when Bush Snr. could have counted on full support from the Arab states to attack Iraq, all he did was push them out of Kuwait. The Neo-Cons were so embarassed by this, they got his son elected to finish the job. He still hasn't finished it.

Ok, good point, better than the other fag have come up with.

But US invaded Iraq as they were violating International law, as, perhaps, some are arguing, the US is doing now... too drunk anyway atm

 

[Mark]

Ok, good point, better than the other fag have come up with.

But US invaded Iraq as they were violating International law, as, perhaps, some are arguing, the US is doing now... too drunk anyway atm

No... the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - remember? 9/11? Hmm? The day that shook the world? Hmm?

 

[Incarnate]

I voted but I aint gonna tell cuz Im special. And because I dont want to get on Dan's bad side. The left one.


(Damn that might be funny if i could remember whats left wing and right. Basically im really super ignorant and uneducated w politics.)

 

[Goreripper]

Ok, good point, better than the other fag have come up with.

But US invaded Iraq as they were violating International law, as, perhaps, some are arguing, the US is doing now... too drunk anyway atm

No... the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - remember? 9/11? Hmm? The day that shook the world? Hmm?

Actually the US invaded Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America. UN Resolution 1441 provided for "serious consequences" against Iraq if they did not disarm, however, there was no allowances for an invasion. Regardless, in spite of the ongoing weapons inspections teams failing to find any evidence of any form of chemical, biological or nuclear weapon or the method of delivering them in Iraq, the US government continued to believe that Saddam still had them. In fact, Colin Powell presented evidence that Iraq was actively producing chemical weapons as late as February 2003. He pushed for a new resolution to invade but it was vetoed. In breach of international law, the US invaded Iraq and later found what the weapons inspectors had been telling them all along - there was no longer any WMDs in Iraq. Saddam tried numerous times after 9/11 to talk to the White House. He even promised to hand over captured AQ operatives, to go into exile, to allow thousands of FBI agents into Iraq to search it high and low, to hold democratic elections, to give US firms exclusive mining and oil-drilling rights and to support the US in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Everything he suggested was ignored or refused. Now I don't have an sympathy for Saddam, but you'd have to admit that all of that sounds like he was trying not to start a war. But it didn't really matter, because Clinton had already made the Iraq Liberation Act law in 1998, the stated goal of which was to support regime change in Iraq. 14 days before it was made law, the US bombed Iraq for four days. However, there's nothing in the Act that allows for US forces to actively participate in the process of regime change except to assist with the training of organisations opposed to Saddam.

 

[Dän]

No... the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - remember? 9/11? Hmm? The day that shook the world? Hmm?

I was talkin about gulf war 1

 

[Mark]

WMD was their excuse for going to war; the reason, which was sold to the American people and congress, was that Saddam was directly involved in planning of 9/11 or funding Al Queda (depends on which news story you read, or FOX talking head you listened to), and would therefore strike the US again. To quote Bushie:

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Immediately following 9/11, the Bush administration told Richard Clarke to find evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, despite Clarke insisting Saddam had nothing to do with it. The last 6 years has been about 9/11 and "how it changed everything", while Saddam was essentially a crippled dictator who'd once "tried to kill mah daddy". He was first someone with close ties to Al Queda, then a harboror of WMD's, then a brutal dictator, all shifting depending on what Bush needed to sell to the people, or whether his previous claims had been disproved or not.

Hell, there's also some parties that claim Bush targetted Saddam because he was switching from the US dollar to Euros for his oil exports.

There's a variety of plausible (and not so) reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq, but the impetus sold to the US people was that Saddam was directly linked to Al Queda and the attacks on 9/11.

 

[Shannow]

Hell, there's also some parties that claim Bush targetted Saddam because he was switching from the US dollar to Euros for his oil exports.

Another couple of bods tried that trick.

Venezuela, just before their attempted coup/revolution, and Iran with their Oil Bourse.

Look where it got them in propoganda...errm public opinion !!

China reckoned that their squillion dollars of U.S. debt wasn't worth it with the $US tanking, and were talking of divesting themselves...Some righty Yanks were talking that THAT was an act of war.

 

[Dän]

WMD was their excuse for going to war; the reason, which was sold to the American people and congress, was that Saddam was directly involved in planning of 9/11 or funding Al Queda (depends on which news story you read, or FOX talking head you listened to), and would therefore strike the US again. To quote Bushie:



Immediately following 9/11, the Bush administration told Richard Clarke to find evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, despite Clarke insisting Saddam had nothing to do with it. The last 6 years has been about 9/11 and "how it changed everything", while Saddam was essentially a crippled dictator who'd once "tried to kill mah daddy". He was first someone with close ties to Al Queda, then a harboror of WMD's, then a brutal dictator, all shifting depending on what Bush needed to sell to the people, or whether his previous claims had been disproved or not.

Hell, there's also some parties that claim Bush targetted Saddam because he was switching from the US dollar to Euros for his oil exports.

There's a variety of plausible (and not so) reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq, but the impetus sold to the US people was that Saddam was directly linked to Al Queda and the attacks on 9/11.

You're really not revealing any unknown truths; there was an Iraq task force set up to pin them on something headed by people like Karl Rove.

Bush is right, CLinton waited, 3500 people died, should we wait longer? No attack on US since 2001 because of pro-active policy.

Besides, as soon as Bush entered the white house he had a massivly agressive Foreign policy, he wanted US to be the strongest in every area and spread democracy around the world, whats happening now is far from unexpected, 9/11 was just a propellant for the neo con agenda.

 

[Spiff]

You're unbelievable, Dan.

 

[Shannow]

Spiff,
the world is currently ruled by people who think exactly the same (Bush and his neocon fuckwit mates).

Ledeen (Rove's mentor) in 1999 basically said that he was hoping for another "lucky" event like Pearl Harbour so that things could be progressed.

Also has recommended that corporations should run countries rather than elected Governments.

But one of his better quotes (in line with Dan's post) is

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business

 

[Dän]

You're unbelievable, Dan.

How so? I know the same things you do, I just have different views, nothing wrong there.

 

[Dän]

Spiff,
the world is currently ruled by people who think exactly the same (Bush and his neocon fuckwit mates).

Ledeen (Rove's mentor) in 1999 basically said that he was hoping for another "lucky" event like Pearl Harbour so that things could be progressed.

Also has recommended that corporations should run countries rather than elected Governments.

But one of his better quotes (in line with Dan's post) is

The world is ruled by neocons, good. I would prefer to see a US empire rather than a radical Muslim one...call me a bigot.