Originally posted by orfeoYour dates a bit out there. The US government got the military to draw up plans for invading Iraq in April 1999.
No, you don't know. But its Bush's job to know.
Forget the false WMD reports. There is evidence on record that the inner circle started talking about invading Iraq on the evening of September 11, 2001, while they were in the presidential bunker. That was my original point.
Any manipulation of data after that was only to tell Bush and co. what they so desperately already wanted to hear.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Could I do a better job?
every one bashes on George W. Bush really hard about the job he's doing with the economy, war, etc.
but my question to anyone who criticizes him so hardly is this:
Could you do any better a job at leading this country through the first attacks on American soil in 60 years?
I think not.
Bill Clinton wouldn't have dona any better a job, as it was his slackened homeland security that enabled such an attack
It would be harder to do a worse one.
The reasons for the attack on US soil was due to Bush's daddy and his handling of the first gulf war.
Clinton may have been a scumball with the morals of a snake but he was a great politician and diplomat.
Israel was heading towards the Oslo accord, the Irish situation was greatly improved and the standing of the US in the world was light years from what it is now. Clinton spoke everyone listened, Bush speaks everyone laughs.
Now the USA is seen as a dangerous and uncontrollable aggressor. Bush is ridiculed and hated by most of the world. And you think he is doing better than anyone else could?????????????
Do you ever open your eyes and think for yourself or is it a case of switch on Fox news and take notes?
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30its apples v oranges. Angus Young is one of the greatest lead guitarist showman that ever lived and if you were comparing him to Eddie Van H then you might have a basis for comparison. Either compare Accadacca's original frontman Bon Scott or their current Brian Johnson to DLR to compare apples.
no, id have to say Angus young was the greatest frontman of all time... ...........
Originally posted by orfeoOne of the basic reasons that the US continuously supported SH and propped up Iraq was that Iraq hopefully would be a buffer against the fundamentalism that had swept over Iran when the Khomeni and crew took over the nation of Iran and ousted its leader the Shah Resa Pahlavi. A guy whose family had been installed into the position of power by the British (who else could have meddled that effectively) back at the start of the 20th century. He Shah Resa was Oxford educated and wanted to modernise Iran as well as have a greater say in the way that oil ran in his country.
The Iraqi government was very secular and was actively hostile against Islamic religious groups, regarding them as a threat.
In what some saw as a classic case of an ungrateful child biting the hand that fed it, Western support dried up as unrest started in Iran, first at the Universities as fundamentalist groups, some say funded by Western interests keen to put this Westernized Shah back in his place, started to radicalize the campuses to fight against the secularization that was becoming the norm in Iran. Western dress was becoming the norm, nightclubs were springing up in downtown Tehran and for some the end of the Islamic way was in sight. Enough to give the religious traditionalists the willies and get them out calling the people back to their roots and to fight off the evil of western consumerism.
The reaction of the mullahs to the influence of the west was very similar to the reaction of the Soviets to the west. Its funny how all three languaged each other as evil. But I digress.
Your point is well made. The west then sought to halt the domino of fundamentalism in the region by helping SH, who favored a secular society. Unfortunately he wasn't very well balanced and in the process of being supported by the US of A, probably gave those anti US forces more and more reasons to believe that the true evil in the world was a nation that proudly boasted to defend the freedom of all in the name of God.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30yes, definitely.
every one bashes on George W. Bush really hard about the job he's doing with the economy, war, etc.
but my question to anyone who criticizes him so hardly is this:
Could you do any better a job at leading this country through the first attacks on American soil in 60 years?
I think not.
Bill Clinton wouldn't have dona any better a job, as it was his slackened homeland security that enabled such an attack
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Well I have commented in the past about how both major US political parties have been bought and paid for by the same people. Exxon-Mobil and Microsoft are two companies that immediately spring to mind as big funders of both Republicans and Democrats, but there are many others.
still Clinton's administration i believe...
Originally posted by Ian68true, money drives todays politics more than anything...
Well I have commented in the past about how both major US political parties have been bought and paid for by the same people. Exxon-Mobil and Microsoft are two companies that immediately spring to mind as big funders of both Republicans and Democrats, but there are many others.
i just think we need to turn this debate to ask the question:
which administration, bush or clinton, is responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as the war we're in
i personally believe that both administrations had their faults, but to definitively determine exactly which administration was at fault is something I can not do...
Originally posted by wedgehead2Yes I do. A lot of Americans are kind of fed up with Europe right now. Currently there are less US soldiers based in Europe since the start of NATO. The Europeans for the most part want us out of there in my opinion. I say fine. It's their country or in this case their continent. In fact don't stop there. The US should also tell the UN to flock off and get out of the UN. Make the UN building an apartment complex for all I care or at the least send it to Geneva Switzerland. After all the Swiss are one of the true neutral countries of the world.
You really think that? American interventionism in other areas of the world seems to be quite a popular thing in Washington at the minute.
Originally posted by slimjimI would like to see the the U.S. make the same deal with South Korea.
You're right. I agree. Send all of the US troops back home. Now promise me that you won't want them back at a later date.
Bring the troops home! They have been in Germany and South Korea for far too long.
Originally posted by slimjimI agree that it makes sense to have the UN based in Switzerland- a country that is one of the very few (if not only) to be consistently neutral for a long time. However, as the US helped set up the UN it seems kinda a waste of money and time to quit now.
Yes I do. A lot of Americans are kind of fed up with Europe right now. Currently there are less US soldiers based in Europe since the start of NATO. The Europeans for the most part want us out of there in my opinion. I say fine. It's their country or in this case their continent. In fact don't stop there. The US should also tell the UN to flock off and get o ...[text shortened]... to Geneva Switzerland. After all the Swiss are one of the true neutral countries of the world.