Bush and Afghanistan

[M.Dancer]

The Taliban who control Afganistan are bullies and so are certain posters on here. If they had their way Canada and the US would be no different than Afganistan.

That's not true.

Idiots are tollerated here...

[M.Dancer]

The US never had anything against the Taliban while fighting the Russians and not after that war was over.

The Taliban didn't fight the russians.

Cue the next idiocy....

They never had anything against them months leading up to 9/11, while they were talking oil business with them.

Oil...? In afghanistan?

Cue....

[bush_cheney2004]

What does that have to do with this statement: quote name='bush_cheney2004' date='Apr 4 2008, 01:41 PM: Maybe it is because you are wrong. See truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and one Mr. Abdul Rahman Yasin. -- and that fact that you were the one who was wrong? It has absolutely nothing to do with what GostHacked has stated and your incorrect response.

No, you are confused. Yasin (born in Indiana), was raised in Iraq and used his American citizenship for passport games. At one point he was believed to be the only solid lead back to Saddam, now gone unsubstantiated. Either way, the nationality of the big bad terrorists is secondary compared to the networks of financing, conspiracy, training, and safe harbor, and focusng just on 9/11 hijackers is just plain stupid.

I realize it is very important for you to score one against little 'ol me given your record...better luck next time.

Edited April 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

No, you are confused. Yasin (born in Indiana), was raised in Iraq and used his American citizenship for passport games. At one point he was believed to be the only solid lead back to Saddam, now gone unsubstantiated. Either way, the nationality of the big bad terrorists is secondary compared to the networks of financing, conspiracy, training, and safe harbor, and focusng just on 9/11 hijackers is just plain stupid.

I realize it is very important for you to score one against little 'ol me given your record...better luck next time.

I'm sorry, but "little ol' you" mean nothing to me-- the only thing I find "very important" is setting the record straight; and in this case, GhostHacked was totally correct in his statement: most of the hijackers were Saudis and some Pakistanis. None where Iraqi, or Afghan. I didn't expect you to admit to being wrong or to appreciate the facts, but others on here do. And the fact is, Yasmin was American, not Iraqi, just as I stated, just as you confirmed-- and he wasn't a highjacker.

Edited April 5, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sorry, but "little ol' you" mean nothing to me-- the only thing I find "very important" is setting the record straight; and in this case, GhostHacked was totally correct in his statement: most of the hijackers were Saudis and some Pakistanis. None where Iraqi, or Afghan. I didn't expect you to admit to being wrong or to appreciate the facts, but others on here do. And the fact is, Yasmin was American, not Iraqi, just as I stated, just as you confirmed-- and he wasn't a highjacker.

But while you play rope-a-dope about the specific hijackers on 9/11/2001, the world has moved on. The odd thing is that "attacking" Saudi Arabia would not make them happy either!

I stand by my post in the complete context of terror attacks on the US and other nations, regardless of perpetrator nationality. McVeigh and Yasin demonstrate this reality.

Edited April 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

The US never had anything against the Taliban while fighting the Russians and not after that war was over.

Actually and technically they were Mujahideen who were financed and armed by the CIA, China, and other European countries. Reagan referred to them as "freedom fighters," and heroic. (from Wikipedia). Wonder if the gipper would think of their cousins the Taliban as heroic.

[GostHacked]

Maybe it is because you are wrong. See truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and one Mr. Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Thanks for that, but I was talking about the 9/11 attacks, in which none of the hijackers were Iraqi or Afghan. Hard to hijack a van when you are the one driving it. Go twist it some more.

I stand by my post in the complete context of terror attacks on the US and other nations, regardless of perpetrator nationality. McVeigh and Yasin demonstrate this reality.

So it seems like a great deal of terrorists are home grown right in the US ... what is your point?

You have consistancy, I'll give you that.

Jazzer, ..... they just don't listen.

American Woman .. much thanks.

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks for that, but I was talking about the 9/11 attacks, in which none of the hijackers were Iraqi or Afghan. Hard to hijack a van when you are the one driving it. Go twist it some more.

So it seems like a great deal of terrorists are home grown right in the US ... what is your point?

You have consistancy, I'll give you that.

Jazzer, ..... they just don't listen.

American Woman .. much thanks.

What is stunning is that since the CIA was privatized and turned into a only for profit orgainization...there really is no intelligence in America to serve and protect the people...our elite just don't give a crap..if they were no so selfish and actually adhered to the principle of service...bluntly put - we have no noble men or woman left - just parasites in public office who if they were on their toes would have stopped the 911 attack - BUT they did not because there is no political or personal will to actually take care of the populace...we were betrayed by our own that we trust..and we do not take into account that they do not love us and really don't give a damn....our leadership as well as the American one, is not made up of people who actually care...they are akin to a rich drunken father who allows his children to be harmed by his other drunken and preverted friends...our protectors are no our patrons..they serve themselves. So the best we can do is stay on guard and watch our own backs..because they are not interested in doing the job RIGHT!

[GostHacked]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2022991.stm

Monday, 3 June, 2002, 12:44 GMT 13:44 UK

Tariq Aziz told the American news programme 60 Minutes that Iraq had twice offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is in prison in Iraq and is on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...8dkpee.asp?pg=2

10/20/2003

Cheney mentioned Abdul Rahman Yasin in his "Meet the Press" appearance on September 14. According to documents discovered in Iraq after the war, Yasin fled to Baghdad shortly after the 1993 bombing and was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi government.

Documents uncovered recently tell us that Yasin was harbored by the former Iraqi regime. That bears repeating. The man who burned his leg mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center truck bomb has been living in Iraq and received a monthly stipend from Saddam Hussein.

Well someone is lying. Noting the date of these articles is very important.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/16/chen...aq_is_linked_to

But there is a lot that Cheney did not say about Yasin. First, Yasin is an American citizen who was born in Bloomington, Indiana. Second, the FBI questioned Yasin shortly after the 1993 bombing, characterized him as cooperative and then allowed him to leave the country. But what is perhaps most interesting is that when Yasin left the US he went to Iraq where he lived for a year before being arrested by Iraqi intelligence agents in 1994. Last summer 60 Minutes interviewed him in Baghdad in an Iraqi intelligence facility. It was the first time he was seen since the 1993 attacks. Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told 60 Minutes that twice Iraq attempted to hand him over to the US, once in 1994 when Clinton was President and again after the attacks on September 11.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/?/en/story-d..._fighting_terr/

[bush_cheney2004]

...So it seems like a great deal of terrorists are home grown right in the US ... what is your point?

The point is obvious....attacking countries based on all the different nationals who perpetrate terrorism is problematic. And of course, it is just plain stupid for someone to bemoan American foreign policy while at the same time suggesting that Saudi Arabia should be attacked for 9/11.

Should the US attack Canada for the Millennium Bomber?

News Flash: American counter-terrorism efforts did not start after 9/11....just the part you don't like.

Edited April 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Should the US attack Canada for the Millennium Bomber?

They attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, if that's the standard what's to stop them from attacking anyone including Canada? What if a container nuke is successfully shipped to the US via Canada and kills a couple of million Americans? You can bet there will be a least a few of you calling for the annexation of Canada in the name of national insecurity.

[bush_cheney2004]

They attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, if that's the standard what's to stop them from attacking anyone including Canada? ...

Canada wasn't attacked, but it is still in Afghanistan peace-killing the local rif-raf. So I guess anything is possible!

[M.Dancer]

They attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, if that's the standard what's to stop them from attacking anyone including Canada? What if a container nuke is successfully shipped to the US via Canada and kills a couple of million Americans? You can bet there will be a least a few of you calling for the annexation of Canada in the name of national insecurity.

Unfortunately the distinction between a country being used and a country active abbeting terrorists is lost on someone with eyeball's limited ability.

After a couple of million dead the call would be justified.

And that isn't the reason why we as neighbours shouldmake our security and the Americans security a number 1 priority.

....of course in eyeballs polka dot sky universe, ethics trump a few million dead...

[Guest American Woman]

The point is obvious....attacking countries based on all the different nationals who perpetrate terrorism is problematic. And of course, it is just plain stupid for someone to bemoan American foreign policy while at the same time suggesting that Saudi Arabia should be attacked for 911

Attacking any country when terrorists are spread all over the world, and train in any nation including our own, is "problematic." Yet we pick and choose which country/countries to attack according to what best suits our interests, notwithstanding innocent deaths, which makes no sense at all regarding ridding the world of terrorism. I think that was the point being made, not promoting an attack against Saudi Arabia.

Edited April 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Attacking any country when terrorists are spread all over the world, and train in any nation including our own, is "problematic." Yet we pick and choose which country/countries to attack according to what best suits our interests, notwithstanding innocent deaths, which makes no sense at all regarding ridding the world of terrorism. I think that was the point being made, not promoting an attack against Saudi Arabia.

Frankly, I don't know what to think about confused individuals who think the US should "attack" nations based on anything but self interest. These self appointed arbiters of what is logical or worse yet..."fair"...skitter from one silly notion to another. Terrorism was a mainstay long before Dubya raised the ante. I prefer Dick Cheney's perspective: we can have terrorism with access to oil, or terrorism without access to oil.

Then we have some Canadians who feel so impotent that their only political and psychological rescue from peace-killing in Afghanistan rests with whatever the Unites States (and NATO) decides to do.

[Guest American Woman]

Frankly, I don't know what to think about confused individuals who think the US should "attack" nations based on anything but self interest.

I don't think the U.S. should attack nations for any reason. I think the military should be for defensive purposes, and I'm betting most people would agree with me; that's why this war had to be presented as a war against terrorism, not a war of "self interest."

Terrorism was a mainstay long before Dubya raised the ante. I prefer Dick Cheney's perspective: we can have terrorism with access to oil, or terrorism without access to oil.

What he says is true. We will have terrorism either way, so apparently he's recognizing that the war in Iraq won't stop terrorist attacks; and evidently he's ok with thousands of innocent people being killed so we have access to oil. Seems to me, hearing this line of thought, it is all about the oil. It also seems to me that attacking and killing westerners is being done in the "self interest" of al qaeda.

So I don't know what to think about confused individuals who think it's ok for the U.S. to attack for its self interests, but it's not ok for others to attack for their self interests.

Edited April 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think the U.S. should attack nations for any reason. I think the military should be for defensive purposes, and I'm betting most people would agree with me; that's why this war had to be presented as a war against terrorism, not a war of "self interest."

That is a luxurious opinion completely inconsistent with reality and history of American foreign policy. Most people would not agree with you vis-a-vis Afghanistan, which was heralded as the necessary and moral alternative to policy in Iraq, but every bit in self-interest.

What he says is true. We will have terrorism either way, so apparently he's recognizing that the war in Iraq won't stop terrorist attacks; and evidently he's ok with thousands of innocent people being killed so we have access to oil. Seems to me, hearing this line of thought, it is all about the oil. It also seems to me that attacking and killing westerners is being done in the "self interest" of al qaeda.

It's not all about oil...but that will do for now. PMs Blair and Howard agreed.

So I don't know what to think about confused individuals who think it's ok for the U.S. to attack for its self interests, but it's not ok for others to attack for their self interests.

The UN and NATO were not moved by such sentiments. Take it up with them.

[Guest American Woman]

That is a luxurious opinion completely inconsistent with reality and history of American foreign policy.

Whose "reality?"

Most people would not agree with you vis-a-vis Afghanistan, which was heralded as the necessary and moral alternative to policy in Iraq, but every bit in self-interest.

People who supported Afghanistan did so because it was seen as defensive. That's where the training camps were for al qaeda, so Americans saw it as necessary to fight terrorism. And that's why Iraq was presented as defensive; as a necessity in the war against terrorism. The American public would not have supported starting a war over oil/"self interests." It had to be presented as "defensive."

PMs Blair and Howard agreed.

Is that supposed to make it right?

The UN and NATO were not moved by such sentiments. Take it up with them.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but then I don't really care because the UN and NATO aren't on this board making the comments I'm responding to. You are. If you can't refute what I said, just say so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whose "reality?"

Definitely not yours. See "History of the United States of America"

People who supported Afghanistan did so because it was seen as defensive. That's where the training camps were for al qaeda, so Americans saw it as necessary to fight terrorism. And that's why Iraq was presented as defensive; as a necessity in the war against terrorism. The American public would not have supported starting a war over oil/"self interests." It had to be presented as "defensive."

Wrong....see Gulf War I. The invasion of Iraq was a continuation of the same impass and consistent with US public law, i.e Iraq Liberation Act, WMD, yada, yada, yada. The American public's democratically elected Congress sanctioned and funded the invasion/occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues to do so.

Is that supposed to make it right?

No....your moral imperatives (or mine) are irrelevant.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but then I don't really care because the UN and NATO aren't on this board making the comments I'm responding to. You are. If you can't refute what I said, just say so.

Again, that would be the missing reality. I know it keeps intruding that way, but please be advised that such will be the case until you and like minded folk can change it.

[GostHacked]

M. Dancer

Unfortunately the distinction between a country being used and a country active abbeting terrorists is lost on someone with eyeball's limited ability.

The distinction between who attacked the US and who the US attacked in retaliation of this is also lost on some people limited ability to actually think for themselves and not go with the propaganda machine. If you are a free thinker, then think some.

BC

Wrong....see Gulf War I. The invasion of Iraq was a continuation of the same impass and consistent with US public law, i.e Iraq Liberation Act, WMD, yada, yada, yada. The American public's democratically elected Congress sanctioned and funded the invasion/occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues to do so.

But the reasons most think they are supporting the war are not the same reasons the government is presenting the war. You are duping people on the whole which shows how much greed there is. Also how much fallacy is abound in this War on Terror. Many of us see through it. It took me some time to see through it. I did not see it right there imediately following 9/11. The one thing I knew for sure is that Iraq was not connected to the 9/11 attacks in any way shape or form.

The War on Terror is a complete farce.

Eyeball

They attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, if that's the standard what's to stop them from attacking anyone including Canada?

They don't need to attack Canada. Plain and simple. The US and Canada are friendly to each other and will support each other in most cases. OBL is a Saudi, most of those hijackers were Saudi, so by logic (I know logic is a waste of time on most posters here) Saudi Arabia should be attacked. But wait... OPEC would be all over the US's ass if that happened. So the US takes that threat seriously and plays nice with a country that is as oppressive (even more so) than Afghanistan or Iraq, .... even pesky Iran.

This war on Terror is definately not about promoting freedom in the world. Plain and simple. Even the likes of BC-200whatever, will agree to that. You can invade any country under this premise of War on Terror. Since you are fighting an ideology and not any specific group of people, and since this idology has no boundries like those of country borders, you cannot fight a war on terror and gain any kind of progress.

American Woman

People who supported Afghanistan did so because it was seen as defensive. That's where the training camps were for al qaeda, so Americans saw it as necessary to fight terrorism. And that's why Iraq was presented as defensive; as a necessity in the war against terrorism. The American public would not have supported starting a war over oil/"self interests." It had to be presented as "defensive."

You are 100% correct here. Canada is in Afghanistan as part of NATO. There is no formal NATO support in Iraq. This is important to note as well. I know us lame ass Canadians are as guilty as the US ( of prmoting this war on terror, but you have to wonder why Canada did not opt in for Iraq. It is not about out military stretching thin. If Canada had resource interests in Iraq then Canada would have opted in for Iraq, balls to the wall and all. But that is not the case. And you should ask yourself why.

BC 2...

The UN and NATO were not moved by such sentiments. Take it up with them.

The US sure as hell cried like a little baby and had to take the soother out of it's mouth to talk about supposed WMDs and sponsering terror and presented it to the UN. The UN was moved by such sentiments. And to this day no solid evidence, NONE, that supported the claims of WMDs in Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

But the reasons most think they are supporting the war are not the same reasons the government is presenting the war. You are duping people on the whole which shows how much greed there is. Also how much fallacy is abound in this War on Terror. Many of us see through it. It took me some time to see through it. I did not see it right there imediately following 9/11. The one thing I knew for sure is that Iraq was not connected to the 9/11 attacks in any way shape or form.

The War on Terror is a complete farce.

What you know or think you know is irrelevant to the matter of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, the stated and longstanding goal for the UK/USA. Just because you don't like the manner in which the sales job was executed doesn't mean it is a farce at all...far from it. The serious business of unleashing the dogs of war was considered and supported by many, given the exact same information that you think you know.

Assuming you are a Canadian national, your country abstained from the fray because of a lack of UNSC resolution, not because of too much "greed". Indeed, Canada was quick to line up at the troft for oil services contracts bidding after others had done/ still do the dirty work.....President Bush tossed PM Martin a bone.

I know us lame ass Canadians are as guilty as the US ( of prmoting this war on terror, but you have to wonder why Canada did not opt in for Iraq. It is not about out military stretching thin. If Canada had resource interests in Iraq then Canada would have opted in for Iraq, balls to the wall and all. But that is not the case. And you should ask yourself why.

False...PM Cretien knew damn well that Canada was in no position to contribute even a token effort in Iraq. He hedged his bet with Afghanistan, and even now Canada is coming up short for deployed resources.

The US sure as hell cried like a little baby and had to take the soother out of it's mouth to talk about supposed WMDs and sponsering terror and presented it to the UN. The UN was moved by such sentiments. And to this day no solid evidence, NONE, that supported the claims of WMDs in Iraq.

The UN doesn't mean jack when Uncle Sam decides to bust a move...or not. And that includes Han Blix rope-a-dope foreplay. Bush's WMD speech reads the same as Clinton's in 1998 (for Desert Fox).

[GostHacked]

BC

What you know or think you know is irrelevant to the matter of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, the stated and longstanding goal for the UK/USA.

It is only irrelavant to you.

So why not promote it as is? Promote it as you see it? Why was there a need to dupe the people? You cannot even get away from that. You don't quite go as far as saying that, yes it is wrong. You just simply contribute to the problem by sitting there and doing nothing about it. You are in fact supporting this in a large way. You support lies and deceit, You support invading countries not for the reasons propagandized, but the real reasons for why those countries are being invaded.

You are part of the problem as I see it. You are someone I would not trust. Also, because no trust, no faith. You present a good argument for reasons why things must change.

In a way you are doing some good by saying that the real reasons are false. You represent the reasons why the US would have never gone into Iraq and Afghanistan if it was not for 9/11 and scaring the living shit out of everyone to do your bidding. YAY FOR STATUS QUO !!!! Yay for no integrety. Yay for lies. Yay for everything wrong.

Don't sell me a truck if you really want to sell me a compact car. Don't sell me a War on Terror if you are really selling a project for the new American century. I have no respect for shady salesmen and their snakeoil.

[eyeball]

Don't sell me a truck if you really want to sell me a compact car. Don't sell me a War on Terror if you are really selling a project for the new American century. I have no respect for shady salesmen and their snakeoil.

This is why invasions should be funded by war bonds.

[White Doors]

This can't be dealt with, I doubt if nukes would even work. Whatever else the Taliban are they're surely amongst the toughest humans on the planet. They remind me of the Fremen from the desert planet Arrakis in the novel Dune. The only people I can imagine that might have a chance against the Taliban are the Vietnamese. That said, if these two ever did meet on a battlefield they'd likely greet each other the way the Irish and Scottish did in Braveheart.

The west doesn't have a chance.

wow. this is what they threw the flame of liberty to from their flaying arms?

awesome!

Edited April 7, 2008 by White Doors

[bush_cheney2004]

BC

It is only irrelavant to you.

No, your position is irrelavant and has been irrelevant for at least 5 years. The UK/USA/AUS/POL and others invaded Iraq in March, 2003.

So why not promote it as is? Promote it as you see it? Why was there a need to dupe the people? You cannot even get away from that. You don't quite go as far as saying that, yes it is wrong. You just simply contribute to the problem by sitting there and doing nothing about it. You are in fact supporting this in a large way. You support lies and deceit, You support invading countries not for the reasons propagandized, but the real reasons for why those countries are being invaded.

You admit that you were duped. Speak for yourself.

You are part of the problem as I see it. You are someone I would not trust. Also, because no trust, no faith. You present a good argument for reasons why things must change.

Actually, I present the reasons why things will not change.

In a way you are doing some good by saying that the real reasons are false. You represent the reasons why the US would have never gone into Iraq and Afghanistan if it was not for 9/11 and scaring the living shit out of everyone to do your bidding. YAY FOR STATUS QUO !!!! Yay for no integrety. Yay for lies. Yay for everything wrong.

Nonsense...Iraqis were dying by the thousands according to the same bleeding hearts as you long before 9/11 or any invasion. Where were you when the status quo still meant a robust killing machine, aided and abetted by Canada? Where was your "integrity"?

Don't sell me a truck if you really want to sell me a compact car. Don't sell me a War on Terror if you are really selling a project for the new American century. I have no respect for shady salesmen and their snakeoil.

Your respect is irrelevant....since when is your blessing required to sanction military action by other sovereigns? Your own nation's commitment to the "so called WoT" mocks your position in spades.