Justin, you're completely out of touch with reality.

Your assertion that the US government themselves blew up the WTC just to have a reason to invade Iraq is just too stupid to even contemplate for example, and comes directly from PLO textbooks.
The rest of your arguments make no more sense...

You need to work on your comprehension skills a little bit there, jw. I read back through my post and nowhere did I assert that the US government was behind the WTC attack, especially as an excuse to invade Iraq. We did use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, which was justified. It was nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that were used as justification for the invasion, then when it was apparent that the inspectors wouldn't turn any up, the tune changed to bringing democracy to the middle east, which is something the US pays a lot of lip service to but in practice its something we care very little for. Also, lest you forget, it was implied by the Bush admin that Iraq was indeed behind the 9/11 attacks. Not that anyone except half the population of the US bought that shit though(and perhaps the odd dutchman :mrgreen: ).

As far as the rest of my arguments? Yes, Bush didn't act on, and in fact ignored, multiple warnings from Israel, Germany, Eqypt, and the Clinton administration that
1. Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan
2. That their was an imminent threat of an attack by al-queda

Explain to me how this doesn't make sense?



I fault the Clinton administration for the 9-11 situation. His 8 years in office, with distractions to interns and the like, caused him to shy away from serious foreign policy issues, along with corporate troubles here at home.

Clinton had the chance to take care of Osama several times, and ignored it. Yet, Clinton's agnst for the military can be directly shown with his careless deployment of troops to Somalia, and the horrible tradegy of Mogodishu. Pardon my spelling -- my atlas is not here. Clinton weakened our intelligence forces, and annoyed our allies. His buddies in the UN compromised various missions overseas. He was a rotten leader; I am glad he is gone.

Bush may have been given bad intelligence about the WMD's. It is possible that the missles are buried in the sand, or out at sea somewhere. Saddam could have moved them out of the country.

As we are there, we are now having to nationbuild. This is going to take some time. It took time for Germany to rebuild after World War II (it could have been worse -- Hitler wanted his own troops to completely destroy the national infrastructure, and his top brass refused to carry out the order). It took Japan time to recover after World War II. We are talking years here, yet these efforts do not seem to be spoken about in our history books. There is no such thing as a war, and then a sudden peace.

I am glad that Bush won re-election, and am elated that Kerry and Gore were defeated. I doubt the Libral democrats would have the stomach to complete the nationbuilding process in Iraq. Today's democratic party is not the same as the one that our Grandparents participated in. And no, the Republicans are not saints, either!

As for the thing in Crawford, TX. The media, being libral biased and looking for shock values in stories to sell (remember, the media is in it to make $$ too, and peace stories do not generate sales) is going to give the lady down there her day in the sun, and look for others. I am willing to bet you that if someone organized a party for the war supporters, you would find many more than a hundred or so in the street. You better find a stadium. Or an amusement park.

We do not hear the stories of Iraqi families being liberated from that tyrant, Saddam.

We do not hear about the individual heroic soldiers and the marvelous acts of character to help other people out.

We do not hear about the average Iraqi citizen that went to work today, and is glad that he is employed, and that the water is working, and a Bathist party member is not following him around.

We do not hear about the expansion of enterprise in the country, or the return to medicines, or perhaps that girls are getting ready to go to school for the first time.

We do not hear about the different kinds of foods that are coming into the country, nor the exposure to Western ideas and culture that these people are seeing firsthand.

How do you find these things out? Ask a soldier who has come from there. He will tell you if you ask quietly. He is not going to want and stand in front of a microphone, however, and beat his own drum. They call that character trait MODESTY, and soldiers know all about it.




Just a bit of a peep here from someone from one of the OTHER countries who are involved in the debacle ;)

Fault Clinton, fault Bush, fault whoever you like. Simple fact is, those who complain about interventionist US foreign policy are backed up by the history of DECADES of actively interventionist US foreign policy. The 'fault' doesn't just lie with one or two presidents but instead with a nation's willingness to use military force to impose it's own outlook on others, regardless of the advice and support of even its allies.

History tells that tale quite clearly unless you view history through a fishbowl lens.

Don't worry, I'm not just 'US-bashing' here. I'm just as critical of the current administration of my own country, and of the preparedness of its people to readily adopt what is a downright arrogant and self-centred approach toward others from elsewhere. And don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking in support of the heinous and cruel administrations we see in places about the globe from time to time. I'd love to see the day come when the world can unite against such circumstances. The day when the world pulls together to say "No! An administration put in place by internal military action is not acceptable. Get your act together or we'll send in an Administrator to run things for you until you do!" I'm sure you won't want to hear it, but the current approach of the US, Great Britain and my own Australia makes that eventuality LESS likely, not more likely.

Step back from Nationalistic fervour and look at the World situation through impartial eyes. Since the middle of the twentieth century the US and those who most strongly support it have basically been not much different to all the other rogue, empire building nations of earlier periods in the history of humankind. All of THOSE found 'reasons' to justify their actions too, remember ;)


Let's see what US "interventionism" did for the world...

WW1, US "interventionism" prevented that war for dragging on for many more years.
WW2, US "interventionism" freed Europe from Nazi rule and Asia from Japanese opression.
Korea, US "interventionism" stopped DPRK agression in its tracks and made sure the ROK is the free and prosperous country it is today rather than the decrepit hellhole the DPRK is.
Kuwait, US "interventionism" threw out the Iraqi invasion forces and reestablished the legitimate government. It also put an end to Iraqi imperial ambitions.
Afghanistan, US "interventionism" caused the defeat of the Soviet invasion force, and in the second instance the demise of the opressive Muslim fundamentalist Taliban who were sponsoring lethal terrorists the world over.
Iraq, US "interventionism" brought down another oppressive dictator and we now have a fledgling democracy there.

That's just the more high profile instances of US "interventionism".
Of course the socialist press aren't interested in reporting things like they really are, instead blowing every little setback way out of proportion in order to make the US look bad and terrorists and dictators look good.


Not to mention all the other nations involved in those various events. That list, presented as it is, is the height of arrogance and a blinkered view of history.

National pride is wonderful, the US has long been a staunch advocate and supporter of democracy, but you really should get 'history' right rather than misrepresenting it.


In all those events the outcome would have been quite different without US "interventionism", which is why I picked them.
I know full well there were others involved, in fact my own country was involved in ALL of them except WW1 on the side of the US (and was neutral in WW1).


Did you know that there are less people killed in Iraq now each day due to violence than there are traffic victims in New York on the same day?

First of all, where did you come up with this nonsense. I've heard this used before and it really is a weak argument and one that doesn't hold up to any real kind of scrutiny. Find me the numbers... actually, nevermind, I'll find them for you.

In 2004, there were 287 people killed in motor vehicle accidents in NYC. Across the US, motor vehicle accidents killed 45,000 and thats in a country of 290 million people. Now, the population of NY is roughly 20 million, about 8 million shy of Iraq. Even taking that into account, your argument really doesn't hold any water.

To put this in perspective, in 2004 alone, 8,000 military troops were flown to Germany due to getting wounded. Thats on top of a total of 1800 military deaths, anywhere from 25,000 - 30,000 civilian deaths(and god knows how many civilian wounded)... you begin to see my point where your comparison between Iraq and New York traffic accidents is utterly rediculous.

Then you attempt to somehow rebuke my comments(totally ignoring my previous post btw) by going off on a tangent about how great American intervention has been for the world. Since WWII our intervention has done far more harm than good. Lest you forget, it was our intervention that helped keep Saddam in power for years. Then look at the damage and pain and suffering our "intervention" has caused in latin america... You had Panama, which on the same day of the invasion the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...." Funny eh?

Then you had the CIA running rampant in places like Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua training right wing paramilitary groups and drug dealing thugs(Nicaraguan Contras) who've terrorized entire populations through murders, kidnappings, rapes... you name it. You had the bullshit invasion of Grenada, justified by Reagan saying that the Soviets were ready to use it as a launching pad for an invasion into the US. I could go on if you like.

Thats my perception of US intervention.

And remember Jr.'s comments... if you're supporting or harboring terrorists, you yourself are a terrorist.

Words to live by.


National pride is wonderful, the US has long been a staunch advocate and supporter of democracy, but you really should get 'history' right rather than misrepresenting it.

Again, another fallacy. The US, regardless of the lip service they pay to it, views democracies as a threat to its well being. When a countries resources are in the hands of its people, it makes it very difficult to exploit that country. Hence our "intervention" in places like latin america. Look at how we overturned Mossadegh in Iran, an elected leader, at the bidding of Great Britain. Iran could have been a beacon of democracy in the middle east, and thats where it was heading, until we had to intervene on the behalf of what would eventually become BP.

On a different note, it's interesting how the media has paid more attention to the Sheehan circus than it has to Pat Robertsons comments the other day. I'm curious as to how many of his right wing sheep were sitting there nodding their heads in agreement with him when he said we should assassinate Hugo Chavez.


Tiny little difference, Robertson didn't call for Americans to be murdered and he offered a public apology...

Justin seems to be only intent in causing trouble here.


...American lives are more valuable than non-American lives?

...Apologies don't mean that his opinion has changed.

Robertson's comments aren't as interesting (hence not as much media circus) because everybody knew he was a hypocrite anyway.


Justin seems to be only intent in causing trouble here.

Oh come on now. You can't take a little healthy debate? Lighten up. :mrgreen:

I was just pointing out some discrepencies in your argument. No need in getting all upset. What is it I said that hurt your feelings? I was just pointing out the obvious.

Next time I won't call your argument rediculous. That was a little harsh. But you did say I was out of touch with reality, which, when someone takes me to task like that, I will prove I am very much grounded in reality. Causing trouble by making a point? It's a debate my friend, you made your point and I offered my retort. Explain to me how that is starting trouble?


Honestly, I do not see why she is doing this. Yes, her son was killed. But it was HIS CHOICE to enter into the forces and he knew what he was getting himself into. The only thing I see this as is a) a publicity factor b0 a way to show the American public that someone has too much time on their hands.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.