kuzadd

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, and it was sanctioned by the UN. This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state. Iraq was unjustified, and in general, I'd agree that it has proven to be a waste of lives, resources, and time. The US should have concentrated on getting the job done in Afghanistan, and have accomplished nothing from occupying Iraq. why in your opinion was Afghanistan a justified invasion?? Because it was UN sanctioned? "This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state." I am going to disagree with you, that is exactly what the US wanted, hence the need to invade and occupy. The whole thing with OBL is BS, to invade an entire country, for one man, whom , BTW is still free, CLEARLY demonstrates OBL was not the priority, only the excuse. The US has rid themselves of "persona non grata" previously, numerous times, WITHOUT, invasion and occupation, vis a vis ASSASSINATION. THEREFORE, the only rational realistic reason the US invaded Afghanistan and occupied, was because that was the intent all along.Same as Iraq. ( end of story)

Y'know, if you want to whine about a coverup, that's one thing. But one of the most disgusting sights I've seen is pathetic armchair generals who wouldn't know one end of a machine gun from the other pontificating about friendly fire incidents. You've probably never been within 1000 miles of a firefight or unfriendly territory, and I'll hazard a guess you don't ever intend to be. You have absolutely no business even pretending to know what it's like to be in a freefire zone in hostile territory, much less scoffingly dissing the actions of soldiers who saw what they thought was the enemy. Gawd, that burns me. I don't 'whine" I discuss. I wonder why you can't discuss the topic, without whining, about what people choose to discuss or not! It's quite clear the military covered this up and lied to the family, would you care to address that??? Please do and leave all your over the top rhetoric out of it.

That's not an offer. whatever, there was an offer, you weren't even aware of. sheesh. Any offer would have been rejected, irregardless! The US WANTED to invade Afghanistan, just like the US WANTED to invade Iraq, and would have/ DID use any means to accomplish it. That is the simplest, plainest and most obvious FACT. as I already stated : no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war. ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable." therefore anything else you or i would have to say, is irrelevant, the US wanted to attack, NO MATTER WHAT (capitalized for emphasis)

Yes, I do. In fact it was offered. Link Please? Just for you! Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/stor...,573975,00.html U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret....iban/index.html October 7, 2001 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law. no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war. ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable.

No doubt, if this would've been the Liberals throwing money at PQ to buy votes, or try to, the CPC apologists would be screaming madly. Now we here that they are not going to pay as much on our debt, it seems like fiscally wise the Liberals had them beat hands down. Moreover, it is really reprehensible that the CPC and large families are digging into Canadian's to pay for raising children they cannot afford. Huh? And what exactly is a nationalized day care program you espouse, if not everyone paying for kids they can't afford to look after themselves. The Liberals haven't been fiscally wise in eons, ROTFLMAO same old same old double standards. well, I for one am glad you are at least recognizing, the same old, same old double standards, INC. the double standard perpetuated by the Conservative gov. and it's supporters!!! Finally, a breakthrough!

I have defintely missed something, this went from a silly discussion of a stupid movie, to "league" destroying someone's penis!!! I said the movie was homo-erotic and look what it has come to!!! LOL!!!!

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism. International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to? what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to? I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to. State sponsored or state supported terrorism. Only if those countries have signed extradition treaties that they are willing to honour. Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan? Yes, I do. In fact it was offered. IMO: Afghanistan would have given up Binladen , to avoid invasion and occupation (very unpopular with the poulace) It only makes sense. Why do you think it would not have been possible? BUT THEN : why Afghanistan? BinLaden is a Saudi, how do we know , he hadn't fled Afghanistan , for his home country? Then to follow, your line of thinking ( or how I am interpreting your line) Why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked? ????

same old, same old. If it had been a liberal budget, the conservatives on this forum would have castigated it. The shreiking would have been endless! BUT, it is a conservative budget, that looks like a big spending, deficit potential/big government budget, all the very things the conservatives, had a liberal government, put the identical budget forth, would have decried. Yawn, same old same old. Don't use bogus name calling/ smear tactics,( shows your weakness) it is, what it is!! call a spade a spade? if this budget wasn't exactly what it is, big spending, deficit potential/big government budget, the conservatives, wouldn't be using such weak justifications to sell it! Nothing reeks of an election bribe like the government throwing money around!

since the budget, is an amazing spending free for all, throwing taxpayers dollars around , complete with a typical bribe for quebec, to of course "vote conservative", look how much money we threw at ya!!! I guess the conservative supporters gotta start the justification, LOL! The Cons outspent the Libs, and here we see the Con supporters, who railed loudly against it,when this type of money went to Quebec, for starters, justifying it , any way possible. same old, same old.

It seems there is all manner of issues, with testimony. Including testimony being changed. Here's some info along the lines of what you are speaking of. Tillman's platoon had to split up because of a broken Humvee. Tillman's half went ahead toward the town. When the second half of the platoon followed through the canyon, it reportedly came under enemy fire. Tillman grabbed another Ranger and the Afghan soldier and got into position to lend fire support. When the second half of the platoon rounded a corner, they mistook the trio as foes. " so they killed an Afghan Militia Force soldier, who had been working with the Rangers. Then they turned there guns on Tillman. it seems without bothering to see who, they were actually shooting at. from the article I already posted It may have been an accident, but the ensuing cover-up, was what upset the family to no end. Including the nationally televised memeorial service, which was as full of BS, as it could get. it is no wonder the family feels there son's death was exploited. from his service: the pertinent excerpt of Navy SEAL Steve White's eulogy and his reaction to the truth. White, a Navy SEAL, thought he was telling it like it was to the 2,000 or so people gathered in the California sun and to a television audience watching ESPN's live coverage of the memorial service for Tillman on May 3, 2004. White told them all how his war-hero buddy had been killed two weeks earlier in the mountains of Afghanistan during an epic fight against the Taliban. White, it turns out, was telling it like it wasn't. But don't blame White for the misinformation. He was just the messenger. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/sto...ge=tillmanpart2 sppoon fed the BS by the military, on a nationally televised service, despite the fact the military was fully aware, that it was fratracide. total exploitation of the man's death, and totally misleading the family. If it was my child , I would be livid also.

I will take that as gospel and from what I know I agree. But I think the issue the family has is the "commercialization" of his death. They should have just told the truth from the outset A better word, then commercialization, and more accurate, is the exploitation of his death, explotation, was what happened.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism. International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to? what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to? I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to.

We accept a great deal of risks everyday, and people DELIBERATELY trying to kill us is one of them, it goes on everyday, in every city, town and country. We have accepted laws to deal with criminals who attempt to kill people. Yes we have and we have also accepted the possiblilty that going to war might be neccessary in order to deal with the ones ours laws cannot. clarify? If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals. I am unsure where you are going.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/scheer0308 Mary Tillman: 'The Administration Used Pat' anyone who knows anything, or who has followed the Pat Tillman saga, will know, how he was used.

Never heard of him till after his death. So I don't know how he was used and I suspect neithe do you. I heard of him, quite some time ago, you haven't at all, as you admit. Now my question is given you acknolwedge you never heard of Pat |Tillman, which I must say is amazing, IMO, but I digress........ back to question You never heard of Pat Tillman, as acknowledged,THEREFORE, how do you know other people, who have heard of him, way back, have no opinion on how he was used in death.???

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits. Is there a demonstrated danger?? What is a "demonstrated danger"? I'll allow you the time to cogitate and perhaps rethink that question. Use the time well...asking questions and then realizing they are unintended rhetorical questions is embarrassing at the best of times. No need to allow me time. Those are your words, I have no idea what exactly YOU mean by those words. Therefore I asked YOU to clarify that. Note the question marks????? By demonstrated danger, did you mean, the possibility you could get hit by a car? You had better clarify what you meant by that? Thanks!

We accept a great deal of risks everyday, and people DELIBERATELY trying to kill us is one of them, it goes on everyday, in every city, town and country. We have accepted laws to deal with criminals who attempt to kill people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule Army Withheld Details About Tillman's Death Investigator Quickly Learned 'Friendly Fire' Killed Athlete The army knew, but the propagandic value was so high, "the NFL player, who quit a lucrative career to serve his country" was just to good, to not use. Obviously,the concern for Tillman's family, was not there! and then to try to ensure the coverup. ' thankfully, the family persisted, or the truth would likely have not come out for a long, long time. pathetic! Just like Jessica Lynch, another big BS scam.

what a farce the entire Tillman episode has been. The way the US military used, USED, for propaganda value, this man's death, was sick, just sick. The lying, cover-up, yeesh! No wonder the family wants a full congressional probe. Just another Bush regime lie.

Anyone who refers to another as simple minded is an elitist (thinks they are smarter, better educated). No you are not special. You are immature, and therefore my high school analogy. And no, these are not assumptions, they are facts. Dearest Ft Niagara: I will leave you and your cohorts to your flaming, etc., If you would have wished to discuss, why my opinion, on the fact that people who equate through simplistic reasoning, criticism = hatred, was faulty. Using an anology as an example? I used the example of being critical of a child's behaviour for the benefit of the child, is not hateful, but done out of concern, love and an attempt at guidance. Unfortunately instead, yourself and other chose to demonstrate, IMO, the irrational attacking/name calling. I will leave you to it. It does bring to mind the said analogy of the child, who, cries," You hate me", when disciplined, and throws him/herself, down on the ground, whatever, because there mind cannot , at that time, process, what as a loving parent, is actually being done is for there benefit, perhaps even saving there very life. So they act irrationally in response. Do you really wonder, why I come to the conclusion that I do?? When I look at the responses of yourself and your equals?? No wondering is necessary. Good-day.

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits. Is there a demonstrated danger?? What is a "demonstrated danger"? Some one has mentioned you have far greater odds of being struck by a car, and you do, far greater. You stay in the house? A car could come up on the sidewalk ya know? Do you cross the road? That is walking in front of cars? What if someone runs a light? Do you drive yourself? In traffic? What if the driver beside you is drunk? has a heart attack, is tired, is on the phone , is arguing with his kids, an animal runs across the road, what if, what if???????? You could get caught up in an accident, not of your own making, and what with all the potential pitfalls.... Are you locking yourself indoors? Do you know what demonstrated dangers await you in your own home?? " but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits." and this is where you are wrong, and making a huge assumption. I realistically realize that no one, can protect us from everything. It is unrealistic and highly irrational to expect our /a government to protect us from everything , in fact it is downright dangerous for one's own personal liberty to even want that!!!

Regardless of anyones position on the validity of 9/11 happenings, we can all agree on that the current US Administration is using it to the full advantage. I would even say abusing it to their full advantage. The 2003 Presidential address regarding terrorism and Iraq was crafted and worded so well that most people did not realize what he had done in that speach untill it was too late. Be scared, people want to hurt us. Kill you, destroy your freedom. I have yet to see a terrorist destroy my freedom. It is the politician who tells me I am going to loose my freedoms, and it is the politicians who will eventually take them away. If terrorists can hijack a country as easily as a passenger airliner then you should be scared of the terrorist for he can that way steal and destroy your freedoms. Only those in government/power positions can infringe on our rights and freedoms. It is the politician I fear more than the terrorist. ScottSA So why is the government telling us we should fear terrorists more than car accidents? Considering there are many more fatal car accidents than terror attacks.... or could that be just it. Car accidents are just that, accidents, where terrorism is deliberate and premeditated. Also it is just common sense that when flesh and bones go up against a couple tonnes of metal/plastic/fabric, the flesh and bones tends to loose. Well telling us about the next terror attack will not stop it nor prevent people from asking 'why were we not protected?' It is about how the danger is portrayed in the media. Car accidents not so much, a little blurb on a fatal car crash pile up on an interstate killing 15 people, or let's say the Anthrax mail scare. How many people were actually exposed to Anthrax? Any deaths? The media is in bed with the government to instill fear in all of us. We must fear, we must not forget 9/11....... must not forget ... Kuzaad This is it really. How tangible is that threat to your daily life? Are you going to live in fear because you actually fear something? Or are you just reacting to the media when they tell you you SHOULD be scared and fear. Remember, terrorism is the THREAT of an attack, not the attack itself. Terrorism is the FEAR of being attacked, and not the attack itself. Those in power know how to use this against us. We are always in a constant state of 'OMG we are going to be attacked at any moment', and the governments assists with the fear mongering by telling us we can be attacked at any moment. It can happen at any time, reports from some 'government-official-that-cannot-be-named-for-whatever-reason-they-give-you' tells us there is an imminent attack/threat. And it has taken over 5 years for that next imminent attack to happen. But we should be scared of this threat. It could be chemical, biological, nuclear. It could be anything, and it could happen at any time. If you choose to live in fear, then you are giving in to what the government and media tells you. Why do you choose to live in fear? Why would anyone choose to live in fear? How tangible is that fear?? How many of you are living life right now? and How many of you are living in fear right now? Personally, I am living life, NOT fear. I fully realize that the odds, of me getting hit by a car, are far , far greater then, being "terrorized" by whatever. Being fully aware, of the FACT, it's more likely I could get hit by a car, I still go out everyday, anyway!!!

not always. for you can feel fear at a movie, and there is no danger. sometimes one can feel fear , as a perception, or a belief. Like, you can perceive, "someone' is going to harm you , have fear, and no one ever does. I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

trolling or flaming? I wondered, because being new here, I did read the forum rules NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. and then scriblett joins in?! but neither of you had anything to add to the discussion???????

Veer Sharma FEAR: F--FALSE E--EVIDENCE A--APPEARING R--REAL Michael Pritchard Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed. Byron Janis Fear breeds fear. Lactantius Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be. Edmund Burke No passion so effectually robs the mond of all its poers of acting and reasoning as fear. I like these little quotes, just thought I would share them. they seemed relevant in light of the fact the article's premise is how fear, has been used repeatedly, and has caused negative ,self-inflicted , endlessly perpetuated, damage to the people of the US. "The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves."