KrustyKidd

To answer that I would have to assume that I fall into the artist catagory as I am creating something which I hope is a work artfully contrived. I am not an artist by trade but a person who has a world or story that is totally imaginary which I try to bring to life. If sucessful, it will be readable and considered art, if not, it will still be my soul on paper and isn't that considered art as well? Or are we only talking about 'sucessful artists?' As i said before, money is not the motivator, to not do it is unthinkable, how could I live with myself forever thinking that I could have written the next 'count of Monte Cristo' or 'Lord of the Rings?' If it reaches a stage where it makes money then I would look at it as a gauge of my success as an artist, not a businessman.

The Middle East War has been going on for thousands of years? So now you are telling me that these guys were never advanced? I thought lefties were concvinced that Arabs had the monopoly on civilization and now you are telling us that they have always been screwed up in the head, Racist Bastard you are! Besides, did they always kill each other like this, when did they have GLOBAL reach such as now? and really, are you telling me that in the thousands of years of wars the rest of the planet was at peace? Rose coloured glasses you guys have, their country is occupied? Is that why foriegn insurgents are bombing Iraqis? Is that why Iraqis are forming vilante groups to fight terrorists that arfe operating in the country? Is that why Terrorists bomb Indonesians, Turks, Fellow Arabs, fellow Iraqis, UN workers and on and on and on. Oooops, Spainish soldiers, Spanish women, and now threaten the women, men and children of a further half dozen countries? Because the US is in Iraq? I can tell the colour in your wolrd is pretty much basic pastels and one dimensional at that. You keep under Black Dog's skirt there, you make about as much sense as it does. as I said before, if you can rationalize this stuff, you are living in a bubble. And not even an intellectual one at that. These guys want to start WWIII and have the west against the Middle East, them comming out the victor. They desire to kill, preferably westerners, or easterners, or their own in this mission. It is their contrortion of religion, beliefs or whatever you wnat to call it, it is theirs.

Black Dog, someday you will come down to reality, don't worry. For the rest of you who are not wearing your rose coloured glasses, todays news provides an insight of sorts. THE MESSAGE The insight I speak of is not the play listed here but rather the fact that these guys really have no agenda other than to kill. They kill, then come up with a reason. Sometimes it's the US in Iraq, support for them of some imaginary or real kind, and then others still, just an attack. Intellectuals can reason this till the cows come home but the facts are - these guys want to okill us and enjoy doing it. If you can rationalize that, you don't belong to the human race.

Got that right. Why can't we have run offs? A way to whittle away the wheat from the chaff? If that was the case then we might find politicians who cater to us rather their own parties.

One at a time, everybody, I will win your hearts. Even if I don't, I will find a way to overturn the court system. Nowhere does it say that I have to know you to marry you. I'm comming!

I wrote a book for money, made it too. Not millions but I did it. I am working on another one that is more for me than anything else pretty much. It consumes me, I think about it at least four hours a day with ideas and moods cascading over my mind over and over, refining the thing. I have changed my music prefferences to some weird stuff to put me in the mood for certain chapters and such. It has ideas not seen or read by myself and when done, if ever it will be over a thousand pages that I hope to bring the readeer into the world which lives in my mind. Money? Hell, by the time I finish it my business will be sold, and I will be happily retired I hope. It is mine and I work on it because I must. It consumes me.

What is wrong with you BD? The discussion is about elections and democratic vote, not a popularity contest to see if people love the USA or not. Why are you trying to turn it on it's side? Further down in your Al Jazzeera artile the facts are: Your facts, so I take it that you are wrong and I am right as after I said that Iraq would probably not elect a non democratic type government. You then said: I provided some proof, you didn't like it and provided your own, as shown above which confirmed mine. Glad you finally figured out how to do a proper search.

Gallup polls. no wonder your views are so out to lunch, you don't have any clue of what is going on except what you think. Here, expand yourself. USA TODAY ON GALLUP POLLS USA TODAY AGAIN ON GALLUP POLLS Here's more from today, does this sound like a plan to stifle elections? AP NEWS, 17 MARCH Black Dog Where? When have they ousted a dictator and then proceeded to war against the people?

You have read polls from Iraq? They all show the same thing no matter how they are read. A 'rabid, Islamist anti-American government' will not be what they choose anyhow so your argument is moot. As for your hypothetical problem, I can't see it anyhow. Instead of fighting a War against a force, they would be fighting a war against the will of a nation. Bad PR and an impossible task. So much so that is not even worth arguing about.

I agree, I take it very seriously too. I want to marry you Willy. I am married to a few other people, do we need to know each other or can we do it like this. Just say I do. I am straight but don't think that sex is importent in a marrige, matter of fact, is there a reason why I even have to know you? Matter of fact, isn't our right to be able to marry even if neither one of us wants it? I mean, if you don't and I do, what the hell is your problem? You not knowing me and never having to have anything to do with me , should that stand in my way of being happy? I want to marry you Willy, and one by one, all the members of this forum. I also want to marry Cretien, and my Grandfather, my nieghbors daughter, the fire hydrant down the street. Come with me Willy, there is no bounds to our love!!!!!.

Wait for it. Now that terrorists know they can influence elections there will be some big insurance payuts comming the western world's way.

Still don't get it do you BD? Nobody is imposing democracy. The US is providing anopportunity for Iraqis to hold a democratic vote. You know, a vehicle that they can use to express themselves and choose the type of government they wish to have. Hell, it might turn out to be communist for all we know, it will, however be a style that they chose for themselves, not one forced on them. What part about that theory are you unable to comphrehend?

Been busy over the last month or so putting this together. It's to get people together in my town in Ontario, Pembroke. Just finished it today and havn't put out any notices or anything. mAybe this weekend or something. Take a look and drop a note to tell me what you think, any improvements or whatever, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Drew PEMBROKE INTERACTIVE

Was there lots of terrorists flocking in from Syria, Egypt and all to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iraq back in 91?

We may possibly go through it ourselves. God forbid, the list of countries joining this club is growing. The reasons put forth by the Left are varied and semi valid but when you think of it, is there any nation on the face of the earth that does not, has not or will not, ever have contact with the US or a western society that has not, is not or will not, ever work with or trade with the US? Six degrees of separation and these guys connect dots very imaginatively.

I do have a sense of humor and that is why I chose that name. Did I offer to service your mother? No, I also didn't ridicule your name and matter of fact, if you ever PM senior members and ask, you will find that I never make fun of names as some are sentimental to the person using it. Mine, no, I use it on my own forum as administrator and on all other forums I am on. It is a hard 'K' twice which is a classic comedian method of getting an extra laugh from linguistics. Names are a persons identity here and to mangle it is to insult the person. Do it with a good argument instead. To answer your question Timbuktu, no. It was a loose example, I figured you understood that. No, I am not a bureaucrat. I own three trucks and employ three people and myself, I am ex Army, Airborne! And enjoy a fairly active life with a few intresting diversions. No, they were airplanes with terrorists at the controls. That, I thought was understood by the other 6 billion people on the planet anyhow. Cars and trucks are vehicles that travel on the surface of the earth (unless of course they are dropped from an aircraft or driven off a pier or a ferry) Then you might mistake them for a submarine, or a belt bomb if the visual conditions are not optimal. That was humor BTW. I know what you meant but disagree. It was spectacuar! Lots of smoke, lots of fire engines, lots of death, lots of panic! Lots of news coverage. For a terror effect, they could have done more by shooting school buses full of kids all over the country when they pulled into school yards that morning. It would have more of a financial effect as parents would stop sending their kids to school. Nobody would feel safe, not just those living in cities. People would stop going to work and stay home with kids, productivity would go down, the economy would take a big hit. They probably thought of that but it wouldn't have the visability and news coverage, that's what it was all about. Publicity. It's a complicated problem and it has a complicated solution. Denial of resouces as I put forth before and then there is a little hammering involved, some intelligence work and pressure on countries that harbor them. A lot of progress has been made in the last couple years. One sign is the amount of terrorists that are turning up in Iraq. Terrorists like to shock people by bombing civiliians, preferably western ones. Why are they killing Iraqis? Easy, if Iraq becomes a country that has a reason for the population not be miserable they are less likely to embrace fundementalism and accept terrorism. They might even export their good fortune as I spoke of earlier and further erode their operating base. This is a major battle for hearts and minds taking place, hearts and minds that terrorists depend on. These are things that neither side can afford to lose. If it falls, the Middle East will become fundementalist I believe. That's why the US is pouring so much into it and why terrorists are so active against everybody. If they lose, they may begin the long road to obliteration.

Krispy Kreme? I know you ran out of real points to argue with four posts ago but why broadcast it with moniker mangling? Take away their resources. Money, recruits, operating and training bases. That is part of the reason the US took action in Iraq. If your memory is short, scroll up, here is the exerpt from my post where I explained this before you started nit picking and babbling bullshit for lack of solid arguments.

WORLD CONFLICT QUARTERLY

No, they believed that they were doing Allah's will. Why did they think that? Because they were told that over and over by people who enjoy killing people, people who enjoy having power over others, people who also think that they are doing the will of the poor masses, people who I am not so sure think that they are doing also the will of Allah. Were they rich? I didn't ever read a financial statement of the nineteen.

Pretty much. I take it that you are alluding that it is the fault of the west. You seem to forget the middle men, the ones the US pays the big bucks to. Royal Saudi Family and all. As well, the ones like Saddam that make hundreds of palaces while the people starve. And the primitive religion that many Muslims adhere to that obliterates any progressive thinking and ways of doing things, you know, like taking advantage of the resources at your disposal like half the work force (women). Then again, the warlords who continue strife so that starvaation can be used as a weapon, the inability to think liberally so that differing factions can come together and build rather than destroy each other. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why things are messed up, many of them have nothing to do with the west. Very good. Go to the head of the class. That is what the US is doing, note the difference between the Gulf war before and after the ceasefire? This time, America didn't spend a month softening Iraq before hand. Bridges were left standing, power plants were left untouched, water treatment facilities the same. Wow, good point! It would fit so well into a one dimensional argument that a leftist would use but there are a few problems with it. Know any village idiots from the eastern desert of Uzbekistan that can fly a plane, operate a computor, speak fluent English/German/French, flush a toilet, pass themselves off as a normal westerner or at least a funtional immigrant, not drool at a woman on the street? You know, mingle with American Society in a rudementry way? Next, OBL was Saudi, do you not think that he would have people he knew do this mission rather than a whole slew of people he didn't?

Who is more likely to be a recruit for a terrorist organisation, a man with a job, money, no fear of being killed by his own gorvernment and given freedom of choice or a man who has nothing, never will have nothing and knows it? That is what is going on here. Syria did not have the large amounts of oil that Iraq does. Oik provides money that will increase the chances of this working. It provides opportunity and money to spread around to all the people so they can buy things to make their life easier. If you tried this in Afganistan then you would be spending your own money for the next century to make this work. Iraq had a ruler who was in violation of UN resolutions for the past decade, thereby providing a legal justification. Iraq had a leader who intimidated and threatened his nighbors and was therefore not likely to be missed by them, at the very least, they would remain nuetral. Saddam was brutal and unlikely to be missed by his own people and the US would probably encounter less resistance here than in most other Arab countries. Iraq was a central Arab country, unlike Lybia or Yemen and would hopefully trade to those around her from this central location and there by export it's new values and culture to a maximum audience. Being centrally located makes it easier for television, radio, people to spread the good news of their new (and hopefully sucessful) society. Iraq had an army that was beatable with minimal losses to US forces. It also had an added benifit of being an aggressive army that would provide a credible demonstration of American military might and thereby put other aspiring despots on notice. This combination could only be found in Iraq, others came close but did not have the whole list. North Korea has nothing to provide for rebuilding, Syria's Assad is not hated by most, Lybia might be in violation of UN resolutions but is not located in the middle east proper. Iraq is probably the most importent step, and the biggest but it is a beggining. Once the hoped for effect takes place over the next few years it will influence other countries on its own. The US and others will help this process along using military, money and aid.

Then you are in agreement with Bush's method of giving Iraq to the people and providing people an opportunity to live a life free from oppression? Hopefully, this is what will happen and contiue to happen as the rest of the Arab world sees how Iraq flourishes. On the other hand, the US will contiue to wage physical war on the Terrorists and those who aid and abet them. And I thought you were Left Wing.

So you think that OBL would have left Canada alone? Were there not terrorists running in and out of Canada prior to 911? You feel that was OK but not OK to try and stop terrorism in any part of the world? We are a global nation and sooner or later would have stepped on some groups toes anyhow, if not for this than for that. BTW, was outsintg the Taliban wrong? I mean, here was a group that supported terrorism and you didn't feel that we should have done something about them? Surely you must think that our country should take a stand somewhere, at sometime?

AS STATED BY MAPLESYRUP OBL warned last October that "all the countries that participate in this unjust war" were legitimate targets, citing Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy. OBL and his guys don't make any distinction between countries that backed the ousting of the Taliban and those that opted out of taking part in the ousting of Saddam. France, Germany and Canada are among the countries that are targets of his ire. In November, 2002, a month after the Bali bombing, OBL mentioned Canada and five other countries (Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy) as targets because of their backing Bush.

Can we blame terrorists yet or are we still on the bash the USA for everything kick? How are the winds blowing today?