Why Bush Should be Impeached

[BillyBob]

I knew from post 1 that he shouldn't. The rest has just been 'Skeptic Wrangling'. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
This thread has already reached 1000 posts, have we figured out if Bush should be impeached yet? Yes, he should be impeached. Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people, cost tens of billions of dollars, and increase the threat of global anti-American terrorism! :madmad:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I knew from post 1 that he shouldn't. The rest has just been 'Skeptic Wrangling'. :chuckle: Just my "wrangling"? Millions of people in America feel exactly the same way I do!

You know Bush and his Pentagon neocons lied about, distorted and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. Your neo-fascist pseudo-patriotic blinders simply keep you from seeing the truth.

I'm sorry, BillyBob, but if you only get your news from Rush, you'll never see the truth. :chuckle:

Bush and Powell said Friday that a vial of botulinum bacteria found in Iraq is evidence of Saddam's weapons intent. But, the chief U.S. weapons inspector said the vial had been stored in an Iraqi scientist's refrigerator since 1993, said there was no evidence it had been used in any weapons program during the last decade. Bush has gone from justifying the invasion by saying Iraq had WMD that were a clear and imminent threat, to siting alleged weapons programs, and is now saying that Saddam's intent is sufficient justification for the invasion. If intent is all that is necessary, then Bush had better plan on invading many other countries before he is through.

Inspector David Kay reported to Congress that his team has found no weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Therefore, Bush's pre-invasion claims were clearly false, and Iraq was not a clear and imminent threat.

Bush has to be held accountable for the thousands who died in Iraq because of his orders to invade! :madmad:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your neo-fascist pseudo-patriotic blinders...
That sounds like some kind of superhero power. :think:


Soopaman: Die scum...

ScumVillian: Oh no! He's gonna kill me with those neo-fascist pseudo-patriotic blinders. Ahhhh....

Soopaman: <bang> <pow> <pwish> <thud> :SOTK:

ScumVillian: :dead:

PersonSoopamanSaved: Thanks Soopaman, your my hero!

Soopaman: All in a day's work....


(Sorry to interrupt the wrangling. I just thought those blinders sounded cool enough for a comic strip.)

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, he should be impeached. Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people, cost tens of billions of dollars, and increase the threat of global anti-American terrorism! :madmad: no, not true none of it!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
no, not true none of it! Keep living in your dreamland. :kookoo:

[Skeptic]

Here's some quotations from a fascist who's views would fit right in with those of the neocon Bush administration:

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
--- Adolph Hitler

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"Great liars are also great magicians"
--- Adolf Hitler

"The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925).

This is what Bush was hoping for:
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
--- Adolf Hitler

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!"
--- Adolph Hitler, 1930

"We are all proud that through God's powerful aid, we have become once more true Germans"
--- Adolf Hitler

"What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator"
--- Adolf Hitler

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
---Adolf Hitler, 1933

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
--- Adolph Hitler

The similarities are uncanny, aren't they?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :noid:

[Skeptic]

Those who do not see the parallels between fascism and neoconservative ideologies scare me more than the neoconservatives themselves.

[Rational Human]

Originally posted by Eireann
Well, the fact that he LIED to the American people in order to justify a war would be a good reason to start with.

He did not lie. He told what information he had and that was that. The fact that perhaps someone in his administration either used or was fed innaccurate information is more likely.

Saddam was a threat and it's about ***-**** time that America started walking with it's friggin head-held high again.

America never asked to be the world police force but events of the past half-century has forced us into that role.

If anything, Saddam got us involved by asking us for his support and then going rogue. If anything, it is America's responsibility to tame their wild lions.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Those who do not see the parallels between fascism and neoconservative ideologies scare me more than the neoconservatives themselves.

Billy;
BOO!

[Skeptic]

My comments in (bold):
======================
Cheney Says Iraq Critics Would Do 'Exactly Nothing'

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S Vice President Dick Cheney charged on Friday that opponents of a U.S. go-it-alone policy on Iraq favored "doing exactly nothing" while the Bush administration was trying to prevent a terror "nightmare."

"Those who declined to support the liberation of Iraq would not deny the evil of Saddam Hussein's regime. They must concede, however, that had their own advice been followed, that regime would rule Iraq today," Cheney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation think tank. (If Bush had not invaded Iraq, (1) Saddam would be surround by the international forces, (2) the inspectors would have found as many WMD as has the U.S., (3) efforts would be under way to eventually remove Saddam from power, (4) many thousands of people, including our troops, would still be alive, (5) Iraq would still not be a threat to America or the world, (6) America would still have support from allies, and (7) anti-American hatred would not be as great and, therefore, the threat of terrorism would be less.)

His speech represented a sharpening counterattack against critics who say President Bush exaggerated the Iraqi threat to justify war and is now mismanaging the occupation. (The evidence speaks for itself!)

Cheney also rejected criticisms that the United States acted without international approval, and challenged a policy of consensus, as embodied by the U.N. Security Council.

"So often, and so conveniently, it amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing," he said. (Cheney's invade-or-do-nothing black & white scenario is pathetically simplistic!)

In California, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused the media of emphasizing the negative in post-war Iraq. He said there was a "mixed picture" which included progress, but U.S. forces were dealing with a "very serious low intensity conflict." (In a free country, it's the duty of the press to point out major flaws and ineptitudes on the part of the government and the military. It is wrong for the government to gloss over the negatives and emphasize the so-called "positives" of an unjustified unnecessary preemptive invasion that unnecessarily killed thousands of people, cost tens of billions of tax dollars, and has increased anti-American hatred around the world!)

The two officials' speeches capped an offensive this week by Bush and key aides to combat falling public support for Bush's Iraq policy.

U.S. soldiers continue to die almost daily in attacks in Iraq, six month's after Saddam's ouster, and the United States has failed to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the main reason cited by Bush for launching the war in March.

"I know what is going on there and it is a mixed picture," Rumsfeld said at the Ronald Reagan presidential library west of Los Angeles. "And the part of the picture that is negative is being emphasized while the part of the picture that is positive is not." (It is not the duty of a free press to emphasize so-called "positives" when there are so many serious concerns about the original justification for the invasion and occupation! The duty of the press is just the opposite! Our brave troops in Iraq should not be shielded from the controversy back home. Yes, they should be commended for risking their lives for their country. But, they should also know that a good portion of America now believes their mission was flawed from the start!!)

DEMOCRATS ATTACK CAMPAIGN

Democrats have labeled the new campaign public relations spin. (And rightly so!)

The campaign would probably have only limited impact, Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon said. He noted that a prime-time speech by Bush last month did little to build support and this campaign was a lower-profile move. (It's about time America wake up!!)

Cheney compared the debate over Iraq with the early stages of the Cold War against communism, and said the Iraq war was part of a battle to prevent an "ultimate nightmare" of large-scale global terrorism. (Give me a f@@@@@ break! He MUST be kidding! Bush's illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq was the one of the world's "ultimate nightmares" come true!! Again, Bush's invasion did NOTHING to prevent large-scale global terrorism!! If anything, it INCREASED the threat of global terrorism!! Cheney's spin is getting pretty absurd. )

"Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror," Cheney said. (There is no reason to believe that such a horror would have emanated from Iraq any time soon. Especially, with ongoing UN inspections and observations from surrounding forces. There are many other sources around the world where such horrors are brewing. Take N. Korea, for example. Bush invaded Iraq, not because of a clear and imminent threat of some great horror, but rather because Iraq was a perceived as a military push-over with lots of oil, and a political, economic and strategic opportunity.)

He reiterated U.S. charges that Saddam supported terrorism and aided al Qaeda, accused of the Sept. 11 attacks. (-:chuckle:-)

Cheney last month left open the possibility that Iraq could be connected to the attacks (-:chuckle:-), but Bush said later there was no evidence to support a widespread U.S. public belief in such a link. (duh!)

Cheney dismissed critics of the U.S. decision to go to war without U.N. backing.

"Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent," Cheney said. "Though often couched in high-sounding terms of unity and cooperation, it is a prescription for perpetual disunity and obstructionism." (Who was asking for "unanimous" consent? A majority would have been nice. Now, trying to gain international consent is equivalent to "perpetual disunity and obstructionism"? -:doh:-)

Addressing the failure to find Iraqi unconventional weapons, Cheney said U.S. investigator David Kay had found significant evidence of arms programs. ("Evidence of arms programs" is NOT sufficient reason to preemptively invade a country and kill thousands of people! For Cheney, mere intent to resume such programs would be sufficient to invade. :down: )

He also disputed charges that the Iraq war fueled anti-American hostility and said hostility among militants had long existed. "Year after year, the terrorists only grew bolder in the absence of forceful response from America and other nations." (So much for winning the "war on terrorism", folks. If the Bush administration does not see the connection between (1) invading a country in the absence of any significant threat, and (2) giving relentless blind support to Israel, no matter what military actions they take, with increased anti-American hatred, then we are all in for a very long period of international hatred and terrorism. Bush and his neocons must go!! )

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
anti-American hatred would not be as great and,

Billy;
There has been Anti Americanism since the birth of America.

Skeptic;
therefore, the threat of terrorism would be less.)

Billy;
Hmmmm, wasn't the 9-11 attack BEFORE we went to Iraq? :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
anti-American hatred would not be as great and,

Billy;
There has been Anti Americanism since the birth of America. So, what's a little more anti-American hatred? :doh:

Skeptic;
therefore, the threat of terrorism would be less.)

Billy;
Hmmmm, wasn't the 9-11 attack BEFORE we went to Iraq? :rolleyes: If U.S. troops continue to be the occupying force in Iraq and the U.N. does not take charge, there will be an increased likelihood of more 9/11s on American soil. Currently, the Islamic holy war for militants is against the U.S. in Iraq.

As I've said before, terrorism will never be defeated through military force. Just like rape will never be defeated by locking up or killing all of rapists. Just like theft will never be defeated by locking up or killing all of thieves. Just like murder will never be defeated by locking up or killing all of murderers. Ever hear of getting at the root cause, instead of temporary symptomatic treatments?

=========================
Published on Monday, October 13, 2003 by the Salt Lake Tribune (Utah)
Terrorists and Engineers of War on Terror are Codependent
by Gwynne Dyer

The six-month anniversary of the fall of Baghdad on Oct. 8 was one of the worst days yet for the occupation forces in Iraq. An attack on a U.S. road convoy killed at least one American soldier, which is the sort of thing that happens most days, but a Spanish diplomat was also assassinated in Baghdad (the Spanish government backed the invasion of Iraq), and a suicide bomber killed eight Iraqi policemen who are collaborating with the occupiers in the courtyard of their own police station. Not Vietnam yet, but getting warm.

Add the failure of thousands of inspectors to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush administration's request for another $87 billion to cover the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's hardly surprising that President Bush's approval ratings with the American public are falling steeply. It begins to look possible that the entire neo-conservative project for imposing a unilateral "pax Americana" on the world may be rejected by American voters in the November 2004 election. Iraq will remain a mess for a long time to come, but maybe we will soon get back to the old world of multilateralism and the United Nations.

That is the hope many people are starting to nourish, but it may not be that simple. There is now a symbiotic relationship between the Islamist terrorists and the neo-conservative directors of the "war on terror" that promises a long political life to the players on both sides. They are, as our Marxist friends used to put it, "objective allies": both seek to undermine the existing global order in order to expand their own freedom of action, and each group's actions justify the existence of the other group, at least in the eyes of its own supporters.

Al-Qaida, for example, sees the overseas adventures of American neo-conservatives as the best possible recruiting tool for its own cause among Muslims worldwide. If Osama bin Laden could decide the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election, he would instantly choose Bush. A rival candidate might pull American troops out of the Middle East or take a more even-handed approach in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and Bin Laden has no interest in stability in the region.

Given that bin Laden does not have a magic wand, what is Bush's best hope of winning a second term despite an ailing economy and the deepening quagmire of Iraq? It is that Americans close ranks patriotically behind him as they did in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. In practice, that means that he needs either another major terrorist attack on American soil or another victorious war against an alleged "terrorist state" or a suspected proliferator of "weapons of mass destruction."

Do the people around bin Laden understand this? Of course they do, and they will help Bush, if they can. Just one major terrorist attack in the United States -- not necessarily another 9-11, which would be very hard to manage, but just a big car-bomb in a U.S. city that kills a hundred or so Americans -- and the domestic political balance would be transformed at a stroke.

Nobody in the Bush entourage would actively wish for a new terrorist outrage in the United States, but they must be aware that it might happen anyway, and that it would be likely to stampede American voters back into the arms of their man. They will also be aware that it might not happen, however, so they must be considering what action they could take themselves to improve the administration's re-election prospects.

Put so baldly, this sounds desperately cynical. Would patriotic Americans in senior positions in the Bush administration really engineer a war in which young Americans would be killed (not to mention numerous foreigners) just to improve their man's chances of re-election?

No, probably not. But senior members of the Bush administration have a short list of "rogue" countries that they would like to attack anyway, for reasons that seem to them as sound as the ones that moved them to invade Iraq. Their assessment of the threat level from these places, and of the urgency with which America should act against them, will be taking place in one compartment of minds where another compartment is simultaneously contemplating the awful tragedy of a defeat in November 2004 that would, in their view, leave the United States horribly exposed and vulnerable.

What all this means is that we are not out of the woods yet. There may well be another terrorist attack in the United States before the next election, or there may be another war. If either happens, then the confrontation between the Islamists and the neo-cons will probably continue almost to the end of the decade, with each reinforcing the other's challenge to the global order that has been painfully built up since 1945. It is not a happy prospect.
=========================

[Lucky]

It's way past my bedtime, and this is already going to be my second attempt to go to sleep. Let me just read Skeptic's last post and that should do it.... :yawn: :grave:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
It's way past my bedtime, and this is already going to be my second attempt to go to sleep. Let me just read Skeptic's last post and that should do it.... :yawn: :grave: That's right, sleep on it. Maybe in the morning you'll realize I'm right. :thumb:

[Skeptic]

Lucky8,

Now that you've slept on it, can you see that I'm right? :D

[Skeptic]

Just what I've been saying all along.


My bold:
==================
Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks, Report Says
Wed October 15, 2003 07:34 AM ET

By Peter Graff
LONDON (Reuters) - War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Wednesday in its annual report.

The 2003-2004 edition of the British-based think-tank's annual bible for defense analysts, The Military Balance, said Washington's assertions after the Iraq conflict that it had turned the corner in the war on terror were "over-confident."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

Washington must impose security in Iraq to prevent the country from "ripening into a cause celebre for radical Islamic terrorists," it concluded. "Nation-building" in Iraq was paramount and might require more troops than initially planned.

"On the plus side, war in Iraq has denied al Qaeda a potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction and discouraged state sponsors of terrorism from continuing to support it," the report said. (What WMD?)

"On the minus side, war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability," it said.

"The immediate effect of the war may have been to isolate further al Qaeda from any potential state supporters while also swelling its ranks and galvanizing its will."

FAILED STATES

Magnus Ranstorp, terrorism expert at Britain's St Andrew's University, told Reuters the report's findings would drive home the importance of rebuilding Iraq and other conflict zones.

"Military planners and the law enforcement community are fully aware of the consequences of failed states," he said.

"I think it's probably worthwhile for politicians to keep in mind our responsibility to provide sustained and long term reconstruction in war-torn countries, so they don't fly back into anarchy or become incubators of terrorism."

Washington blames al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, for the 2001 U.S. airliner hijack attacks which killed 3,044 people.

A crackdown had netted some al Qaeda leaders and deprived al Qaeda of bases in Afghanistan. But it also "impelled an already highly decentralized and evasive international terrorist network to become even more 'virtual' and protean and, therefore, harder to identify and neutralize," the IISS report said.

It said 18,000 veterans of al Qaeda's Afghan training camps were still probably operating worldwide "with recruitment continuing and probably increasing following the war in Iraq."

Al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are mostly still at large and continue to incite followers over the Internet and through pronouncements on Arabic-language television.

Because of its extreme religious world view, al Qaeda "cannot be tamed or controlled through political compromise or conflict resolution," the report said.

But Western countries need to do more to reach out to Muslim countries and their own Islamic minorities to "eliminate the root causes of terrorism," especially after the Iraq war "almost certainly further alienated Islam from the West."

Efforts should be redoubled to resolve local conflicts, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, so regional radical groups such as Hamas do not fall into al Qaeda's embrace, it said.
==================

All the more reason for the U.S. to get out and the U.N. to get into Iraq ASAP!!

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Rational Human
He did not lie. He told what information he had and that was that. The fact that perhaps someone in his administration either used or was fed innaccurate information is more likely.

Saddam was a threat and it's about god-damn time that America started walking with it's friggin head-held high again.

America never asked to be the world police force but events of the past half-century has forced us into that role.

If anything, Saddam got us involved by asking us for his support and then going rogue. If anything, it is America's responsibility to tame their wild lions. Amen, preach it brother! Can I say that to an atheist? :think:

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Those who do not see the parallels between fascism and neoconservative ideologies scare me more than the neoconservatives themselves.

Billy;
BOO! :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Answer these:

1. What do you think are the root causes of terrorism?

2. What are the best ways to eliminate the root causes of terrorism?

[Mr. 5020]

Skeptic: What do you think are the root causes of terrorism?

BB's assumed answer: Stupidity.

Skeptic: What are the best ways to eliminate the root causes of terrorism?

BB's assumed answer: Nuke all the terrorists.

[Skeptic]

Mr. 5020,

And your answers are ...?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
Skeptic: What are the best ways to eliminate the root causes of terrorism?

BB's assumed answer: Nuke all the terrorists. To be more precise: "nuke all the brown people who wear rags on their heads.":rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
To be more precise: "nuke all the brown people who wear rags on their heads.":rolleyes: Any serious answers?

You're right, BillyBob would prefer to nuke 'em. What about the collateral damage to non-terrorists?

Essentially, Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq was equivalent to causing massive collateral damage (thousands of deaths) in order to take out a suspected few terrorists.

Bush has to be held accountable for the unnecessary loss of those thousands of lives in Iraq! :mad:

How about some serious answers to my two questions?

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Skeptic
1. What do you think are the root causes of terrorism?Islam
Originally posted by Skeptic
2. What are the best ways to eliminate the root causes of terrorism? Exactly what we have done already, except maybe with a little more agression.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
IslamIndeed? And how do propose to solve that? The Muslims won't renounce Islam, period.
Exactly what we have done already, except maybe with a little more agression. Details, please. Many on the Christian side have likened Islam to a cancer, but are quite scant on how to go about treating it.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Gerald
Indeed? And how do propose to solve that? The Muslims won't renounce Islam, period.

Details, please. Many on the Christian side have likened Islam to a cancer, but are quite scant on how to go about treating it. I believe it was your idea to take out Mecca and Medina.:chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
I believe it was your idea to take out Mecca and Medina.:chuckle: And do you believe this would be a Good Thing?

Do you truly believe that destroying the Muslims' most venerated sites will shake to the core their faith in Allah, because he was not powerful enough to prevent it?

That's like claiming that the destruction of Rome would utterly poleaxe Catholicism, or that the destruction of Jerusalem would utterly poleaxe Judaism.

Though now that I think on it, I know of no sites that Protestants venerate...:think:

[Mr. 5020]

Though now that I think on it, I know of no sites that Protestants venerate...:think:As if that's unintentional.:chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
As if that's unintentional.:chuckle: Something about not keeping all your eggs in one basket, or staying dispersed so as to present less of a target...?

Interestingly enough, Al Qaeda thinks exactly the same way...

[Mr. 5020]

Something about not keeping all your eggs in one basket, or staying dispersed so as to present less of a target...?Actually, it's mostly because Christians can't get along.
Interestingly enough, Al Qaeda thinks exactly the same way...You know as well as I do that they don't think. Coming after the US was retarded.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Rational Human
He did not lie. He told what information he had and that was that. The fact that perhaps someone in his administration either used or was fed innaccurate information is more likely.

Saddam was a threat and it's about ***-**** time that America started walking with it's friggin head-held high again.

America never asked to be the world police force but events of the past half-century has forced us into that role.

If anything, Saddam got us involved by asking us for his support and then going rogue. If anything, it is America's responsibility to tame their wild lions. Your going to have to tone down your language.

[elected4ever]

Skeptic"eliminate the root causes of terrorism,"

e4e------First good idea you have had. You can eliminate the problem by shooting all atheist, liberals, socialist, Muslims, hindues, communist, democrats and republicans, catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians(maybe} Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons charismatics and everyone else that disagrees with me. Last man standing wins.

[Mr. 5020]

e4e------First good idea you have had. You can eliminate the problem by shooting all atheist,l liberals, socialist, Muslims, hindoes, communist, democrats and republicans, catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians(maybe} Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons charismatics and everyone else that disagrees with me. Last man standing wins.You agree with anyone?

[elected4ever]

Mr. 5020You agree with anyone?

e4e--- I agree with everyone but everyone don't agree with me. I am an American:D !

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
Actually, it's mostly because Christians can't get along.True. I find great amusement when different sects go at each other's throats...
You know as well as I do that they don't think. Coming after the US was retarded. If their attack had been repelled, you'd have a case. But they got their shot in, and we've been chasing shadows ever since...

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Currently, the Islamic holy war for militants is against the U.S. in Iraq.

Billy;
Of course. Those guys don't want us in Iraq because we can keep a close eye on them. We have shut down Saddam's terrorist training camps, stopped his ability to fund terrorism, we have a couple hundred thousand troops there ready to blow up any terrorist we can find and it is putting a damper on their terrorist activities....

OF COURSE THEY WANT US OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :doh:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
Skeptic

e4e------First good idea you have had. You can eliminate the problem by shooting all atheist, liberals, socialist, Muslims, hindues, communist, democrats and republicans, catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians(maybe} Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons charismatics and everyone else that disagrees with me. Last man standing wins. Or, we could just shoot you, and save a great deal of time and ammunition.

Better yet: we could crucify you...:devil:

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Answer these:

1. What do you think are the root causes of terrorism?

jealousy

2. What are the best ways to eliminate the root causes of terrorism?

Make the penalty for terrorism harsh and stick to it. In other words, if you sentence them to death for terrorism, don't keep them alive for years on end. And, if an entire nation commits terrorism, bomb them.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lucky8,

Now that you've slept on it, can you see that I'm right? :D
Being a conservative/libertarian mix, I'm not the biggest fan of Bush. Some of his actions are downright wrong. (Such as his involvment with the United Nations.) Other things he has done are downright wonderful. Either way, I don't consider him above reproach, nor any human. Many do and many don't. It appears you are trying to persuade people that Bush is a liar among other things. If Clinton can get away with lying, why can't Bush? :chuckle: Sure we all want a president that's honest and full of integrity, but I don't see that happening anymore as we move into darker times. It's sad to think about it like that, but the world is nearing its end. It's becomming harder and harder to ignore the similarity between world events and biblical prophecy. At least I know where I'm going, so I don't need to panic.

Do you know where your going?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lucky8,
Now that you've slept on it, can you see that I'm right?

Billy;
No, we can see that you are LEFT! :freak:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Do you know where your going? Well, right now, I'm going to work.

After I die, I will be going nowhere, because I will have ceased to exist as me, and I will blend back into the non-living elements from which I sprang. :thumb:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, right now, I'm going to work.

After I die, I will be going nowhere, because I will have ceased to exist as me, and I will blend back into the non-living elements from which I sprang.
I think a few posters here would love to see you blend into non-living parts. :chuckle:

If you believe that though, why waste your time on TOL. Why are you going to work? If the only thing you believe in is the here and now, then why not go do a whole bunch of crazy things. Forget work. Become a bank robber or something. Or better yet, live off the public trough. Go shoot people, steal cool cars, etc. If your body is just going to rot when you die, are you doing everything you can to go out in "style"??? If not, what's holding you back? Is it possible deep down inside you're a skeptic to your own beliefs?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky8
I think a few posters here would love to see you blend into non-living parts. :chuckle:A pity that none of them (not even BillyBob) have the guts to actually do the deed...

If the only thing you believe in is the here and now, then why not go do a whole bunch of crazy things. Forget work. Become a bank robber or something. Or better yet, live off the public trough. Go shoot people, steal cool cars, etc. If your body is just going to rot when you die, are you doing everything you can to go out in "style"??? If not, what's holding you back? Is it possible deep down inside you're a skeptic to your own beliefs? That trick never works, Bullwinkle!

Stop trotting out the tired old argument of "if an atheist was really true to his beliefs, he'd go on a mad spree of robbing and killing, and try to go out with as big a bang as possible."

You mean to tell me that your belief in God is the only thing preventing you from killing your neighbor, raping his daughter and cooking his dog?

(A "yes" answer would not surprize me, as one "Christian" I ran afoul of indicated that his belief was all that kept him from trying to kill me [granted, I had just said something very unflattering about his mother, but still...].)

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Gerald
A pity that none of them (not even BillyBob) have the guts to actually do the deed...

That trick never works, Bullwinkle!

Stop trotting out the tired old argument of "if an atheist was really true to his beliefs, he'd go on a mad spree of robbing and killing, and try to go out with as big a bang as possible."

You mean to tell me that your belief in God is the only thing preventing you from killing your neighbor, raping his daughter and cooking his dog?

(A "yes" answer would not surprize me, as one "Christian" I ran afoul of indicated that his belief was all that kept him from trying to kill me [granted, I had just said something very unflattering about his mother, but still...].)
Pardon me, I didn't realize it was a "trick." I'm rather new to debating atheists. It was just an honest question. I guess it has been used many times then if you say its a "trick." What is the typical response to it?

[aikido7]

Bush should be impeached because he is a liar.

He is crafted to appear as a forceful leader with religious and moral values. He is not.

To Bush, unlike Clinton, he is not dissembling to preserve a superficial image he has created. He is lying to create an institutional subversion of what I consider to be true American values: Honesty, fairness and openness.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Pardon me, I didn't realize it was a "trick." I'm rather new to debating atheists. It was just an honest question. I guess it has been used many times then if you say its a "trick." What is the typical response to it? It is not a "trick", just a tired old fallacious argument.

I hope you don't plan to make the claim that a person who does not believe in deities cannot behave ethically.

If you plan to do that, I recommend you trot it out over here:

www.iidb.org

And stick around for the fireworks...:bannana:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Gerald
It is not a "trick", just a tired old fallacious argument.
Whatever the heck it is, what is the usual response?
I hope you don't plan to make the claim that a person who does not believe in deities cannot behave ethically.

If you plan to do that, I recommend you trot it out over here:

www.iidb.org

And stick around for the fireworks...:bannana:
I've been thinking about hitting those forums. Are you the best they could send this way?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Whatever the heck it is, what is the usual response?Are you making the claim? That someone who does not believe in deities cannot behave ethically?

The usual response to such a claim, after the laughter dies down, is to ask the claimant to present evidence.
I've been thinking about hitting those forums. Are you the best they could send this way? Actually, I discovered IIDB after hanging out on what these boards used to be (i.e., ShadowGov.com).

I put "atheist conspiracy" into a search engine and IIDB came out. Draw from that what you will...

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Gerald
Are you making the claim? That someone who does not believe in deities cannot behave ethically?

The usual response to such a claim, after the laughter dies down, is to ask the claimant to present evidence.
I didn't make any claim. I presented Skeptic with a question. I realize that if it was a claim, I would have to present evidence. But it was not in the form of a claim, it was in the form of a question. So what is the usual comeback to such a question? Surely, if its such a common question for atheists there is already a standard comeback?

(I'm thinking about presenting it as a claim in a new thread. I'm sure I could get quite a few interesting responses if I made such a bold statement.)

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky8
(I'm thinking about presenting it as a claim in a new thread. I'm sure I could get quite a few interesting responses if I made such a bold statement.) By all means, knock yourself out.:thumb:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
I hope you don't plan to make the claim that a person who does not believe in deities cannot behave ethically.

If you plan to do that, I recommend you trot it out over here:



Oh why not!

[Lucky]

All those interested in debating whether or not atheists can have ethics, look for the Bullwinkle's Claim thread under "Current Events." I didn't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already did.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
All those interested in debating whether or not atheists can have ethics, look for the Bullwinkle's Claim thread under "Current Events." I didn't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already did. See my response to this topic there.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Currently, the Islamic holy war for militants is against the U.S. in Iraq.

Billy;
Of course. Those guys don't want us in Iraq because we can keep a close eye on them. We have shut down Saddam's terrorist training camps, stopped his ability to fund terrorism, we have a couple hundred thousand troops there ready to blow up any terrorist we can find and it is putting a damper on their terrorist activities....

OF COURSE THEY WANT US OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :doh: One reason we have not had more 9/11s, since 9/11, is their focus is on getting the U.S. out of Iraq. Once Iraq is again self governing, then the Islamic terrorists will refocus their attention to the American mainland. This is especially true if Bush is still in office when the U.S. are no longer occupying Iraq. Bush has generated so much anti-American hatred around the world that he should step down as President for the sake of national security!

[BillyBob]

Aikido;
He is crafted to appear as a forceful leader with religious and moral values

Billy;
Oh, you mean like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jesse jackson did and still do?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
One reason we have not had more 9/11s, since 9/11, is their focus is on getting the U.S. out of Iraq.

Billy;
Yes, for the reasons I stated. I just heard of a Gallup poll that showed 71% of Iraqi's are happy that the Americans are in Iraq. Of course they are! We freed them from a tyrannical, murderous despot. The only surprise to this poll is that the percentage isn't higher than 71%, although the number was 66% a few months ago, so the trend is quite obvious. I find it very revealing that you are taking sides with the wishes of the terrorists and not the citizens of Iraq.

Skeptic;
Once Iraq is again self governing, then the Islamic terrorists will refocus their attention to the American mainland. This is especially true if Bush is still in office when the U.S. are no longer occupying Iraq.

Billy;
Well, I reckon that we will be in Iraq long after Bush is out of office. Roosevelt and Truman are out of office but we still occupy Germany. If you are correct in your assessment that occupying Iraq is what is deterring terrorist attacks here in the US, then that should make you demand that we occupy Iraq for eternity! [you walked right into that one! :doh:]

Skeptic;
Bush has generated so much anti-American hatred around the world that he should step down as President for the sake of national security!

Billy;
:darwinsm: According to you, Bush is the reason we haven't been attacked since 911! :freak:

Silly Neocom.......

[BillyBob]

Poll: Most in Baghdad Want Troops to Stay
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP)--When Gallup set out recently to poll Baghdad residents, the biggest surprise may have been the public's reaction to the questioners: Almost everyone responded to the pollsters' questions, with some pleading for a chance to give their opinions.

``The interviews took more than an hour to do, people were extremely cooperative with open-ended questions,'' said Richard Burkholder, director of international polling for Gallup. ``People went on and on.''

But many of those Iraqis still have sharply mixed feelings about the U.S. military presence.

The Gallup poll found that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon.

However, a sizable minority felt that circumstances could occur in which attacks against the troops could be justified. Almost one in five, 19 percent, said attacks could be justified, and an additional 17 percent said they could be in some situations.

These mixed feelings in Baghdad come at a time when many in the United States are urging that the troops be brought home soon.

Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58 percent, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying ``very well.'' Twenty 20 percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent said very badly.

Gallup, one of the nation's best-known polling operations, hired more than 40 questioners, mostly Iraqi citizens directed by survey managers who have helped with other Gallup polling in Arab countries. Respondents were told the poll was being done for media both in Iraq and outside their country, but no mention was made that the American polling firm was running it.

To conduct the poll, Gallup did interviews face-to-face in people's homes chosen at random from all geographic sectors of the city, and more than nine in 10 agreed to participate, at least double the response rate for many U.S. telephone polls. Pollsters in the United States have an increasingly difficult time getting cooperation from people called on the phone.

[Delmar]

sure but what do they know!

[Skeptic]

My bold:

========================
Published on Friday, October 24, 2003 by Knight-Ridder
Poll Shows Most Iraqis Unhappy with Presence of Coalition Forces
by Maureen Fan

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Most Iraqis feel unsafe in their neighborhoods, think the local Iraqi police can protect them better than coalition forces and increasingly view Americans as occupiers rather than liberators, according to a poll released Thursday by the independent, privately funded Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies in Baghdad.

Coalition forces have squandered the goodwill that resulted from removing Saddam Hussein from power, with nearly 43 percent of Iraqis viewing them as liberators six months ago but only 14.8 percent feeling the same way now.

More than 60 percent of Iraqis have little or no confidence that coalition forces will improve safety, but at least half (50.1 percent) support the coalition presence in Iraq, compared with 33.1 percent who would like to kick them out.

The sample of 1,620 people in Baghdad, Basra, Najaf, Ramadi, Fallujah, Erbil and Suliamaniyah, interviewed between Sept. 28 and Oct. 10, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 points. The results are the third installment in a monthly polling operation run by Sadoun al Dulame, director of the research center.

The survey comes amid increasing attacks on U.S. soldiers in the past couple of weeks. While U.S. officials insist postwar Iraq is improving, there have been more attacks from roadside and homemade bombs as well as an increase in suicide bombings.

The results reflect the challenges of handing over authority to the Iraqis, which Americans say they want to do as quickly as possible, but at a pace most Iraqis think isn't fast enough.

"We expect after three or six months if the same problems continue to exist in Iraq, the coalition forces are going to suffer a lot," said Dulame.

Most Iraqi respondents said there were no current political leaders they could trust. They rated members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, most of whom fared poorly.

Asked which political system they favored, 33.7 percent of the randomly picked respondents said an Islamic government would be best, compared with 30.5 percent who favored democracy and 24 percent who favored a combination of democracy and an Islamic system.

Asked to rate various countries as their favorite political model for a future Iraq, 13.7 percent chose Iran while only 9.6 percent chose the United States.

Dulame said the results didn't mean a majority of Iraqis want hardline clerics to rule them. In fact, religious leaders ranked behind lawyers, writers and other professionals as the best people to lead postwar Iraq.

"Most of the respondents don't know enough to know the nature of such systems so they chose that regime or this regime because they feel or think it is better than the other," said Nabeel al Ani, a professor at Baghdad University's International Studies Center.

"Some of the people have no idea, for example, about the political system in France or Britain or even the United States, but they have at least some knowledge about the political system in Iran, so most of them choose it."
========================

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
One reason we have not had more 9/11s, since 9/11, is their focus is on getting the U.S. out of Iraq.

Billy;
Yes, for the reasons I stated. I just heard of a Gallup poll that showed 71% of Iraqi's are happy that the Americans are in Iraq. Of course they are! We freed them from a tyrannical, murderous despot. The only surprise to this poll is that the percentage isn't higher than 71%, although the number was 66% a few months ago, so the trend is quite obvious. I find it very revealing that you are taking sides with the wishes of the terrorists and not the citizens of Iraq.

Skeptic;
Once Iraq is again self governing, then the Islamic terrorists will refocus their attention to the American mainland. This is especially true if Bush is still in office when the U.S. are no longer occupying Iraq.

Billy;
Well, I reckon that we will be in Iraq long after Bush is out of office. Roosevelt and Truman are out of office but we still occupy Germany. If you are correct in your assessment that occupying Iraq is what is deterring terrorist attacks here in the US, then that should make you demand that we occupy Iraq for eternity! [you walked right into that one! :doh:]

Skeptic;
Bush has generated so much anti-American hatred around the world that he should step down as President for the sake of national security!

Billy;
:darwinsm: According to you, Bush is the reason we haven't been attacked since 911! :freak:

Silly Neocom.......

[aikido7]

The honest man has nothing to hide.

Things that make me go hmmmmm....


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&u=/nyt/20031025/ts_nyt/administrationfacessupoenasfrom911panel&printer=1

[Delmar]

I for one do not hold Bush as an example of a righteous man. I have never voted for him and probably won't next time unless Hillary is running against him. I am grateful that he took out Saddam. I am angry that he has not done the same with the father of modern terrorism Yasser Arafat

[BillyBob]

The Israeli's should take out Yassir, and Bush should openly give his approval.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
The Israeli's should take out Yassir, and Bush should openly give his approval.

Bush giving the nod is most likley all it would take.

[BillyBob]

Yes, and a day later there would be a funeral.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yes, and a day later there would be a funeral.
Sad to say GW has lacked the wisdom to give that nod:cry:

[BillyBob]

Well, the libs would be pissed if he OK'd it, they love Yassir. They always seem to love the bad guys...:think:

[Skeptic]

=========================
Published on Sunday, November 9, 2003 by the Independent / UK
'No President has Lied so Baldly and so Often and so Demonstrably'
by Andrew Gumbel

The intelligence process is a bit like virginity," says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. "Once you prostitute it, it's never the same. Your credibility never recovers.

"Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped."

Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air.

Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President's daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.

What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. "The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That's very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It's so blatant."

Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry.

"Many of us felt there had to be something there ... If this had been another country, one would have written a convincing analysis that this guy is lying through his teeth, that there are no weapons in Iraq. But people thought, the President can't say he knows something if he doesn't. That was persuasive, in a way.

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."

It will, Mr McGovern believes, take a change of president and a change of CIA director to even begin to repair the damage done by what he sees as an overt politicisation of the intelligence business. But even that may not be enough.

"Unless what has happened in the past year and a half is recognised as a scandal, in which the CIA has been badly abused, then there's no hope," he said. "I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days. Turns out, surprise surprise, that even the US press doesn't like to be lied to."
============================

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
=========================
'No President has Lied so Baldly and so Often and so Demonstrably'
by Andrew Gumbel...
What's more "baldly" and "demonstrably" then lying under oath like Clinton did?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Bush giving the nod is most likley all it would take. Then Arafat would be replaced by some other idiot with a gun and a cause...

C'mon folks, this is like fighting the Hydra: "cut off one head and two shall take its place..."

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky
What's more "baldly" and "demonstrably" then lying under oath like Clinton did? Granted, Bubba's actions were pretty boneheaded (He should've just said "Yeah, I did her, and my accusers are just jealous 'cause I'm gettin' more action than they are!" :chuckle: ).

But it does bring to mind the question of which is worse: screwing an intern, or screwing a country...?

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Lucky
What's more "baldly" and "demonstrably" then lying under oath like Clinton did?

Or Nixon, the "unindicted co-conspirator" who repeatedly said "I am not a crook," yet he certainly was one. His rape of the constitution was far more egregious than Clinton fibbing about a bj to escape the Wrath of Khan....er....Hilary.

Or LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin. In the '64 campaign, (after Tonkin) one of his favorite lines was "I'm not gonna send our boys 10,000 miles overseas to fight somebody else's war."
The result, 50,000 Americans dead, and the fracturing of the country which has yet to heal.

[BillyBob]

Herod;
Or Nixon, the "indicted co-conspirator" who repeatedly said "I am not a crook," yet he certainly was one. His rape of the constitution was far more egregious than Clinton fibbing about a bj to escape the Wrath of Khan....er....Hilary.

Billy;
Clinton did much more than just lie about 'that', he obstructed justice, raped women, murdered US citizens, got impeached, lied to Congress, lied to the citizenry, got disbarred, was involved in illegal business dealings, his business partners went to prison [and mysteriously died], was fined over $800,000 for obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case, led us into a recession, tried desperately to harm business in this country, attempted to federalize the medical proffession......Clinton's adulterous 'bj' was nothing compared to the criminal activities that he was involved in.

Besides, do you really think Hillary cared what Clinton was doing with Monica?

Herod;
Or LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin. In the '64 campaign, (after Tonkin) one of his favorite lines was "I'm not gonna send our boys 10,000 miles overseas to fight somebody else's war."
The result, 50,000 Americans dead, and the fracturing of the country which has yet to heal

Billy;
LBJ might actually be a worse criminal than Bill Clinton, but just barely.

Top 3 worse Presidents in my lifetime:

1.Linden Johnson
2.Bill Clinton
3.Billy Carter


Top 3 Best Presidents of the same era:

1. Ronald Reagan
2. George W. Bush
3. John F. Kennedy

[karstkid]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Top 3 Best Presidents of the same era:

1. Ronald Reagan
2. George W. Bush
3. John F. Kennedy

Huh! JFK was a democrat.

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Top 3 worse Presidents in my lifetime:

1.Linden Johnson
2.Bill Clinton
3.Billy Carter


"Billy" Carter? I must of missed that one in history class.

P.S. On a serious note, Jimmy Carter was a pretty crappy president.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Besides, do you really think Hillary cared what Clinton was doing with Monica?
I seriously doubt it. We all know that Hillary wore the pants in that family, since Clinton never even had his...

I wonder if Clinton thought:

Uh gee. Dat womin I got hitched to want to be a prezdent somday. So no mater wat I do, she aint evir goin to leaf me, as dat wudn't be gud fir her publik imaj. Mite as will haf a lil fun senz I kan. :hammer:

At least Bush is trying to get important things done, like putting an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, I think he has more critics to deal with than actual terrorists. Heck, even I will critique him. But all criticism aside, now is not the time for a lame duck president. Unless you like getting blown up by Muslims.

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Lucky
I seriously doubt it. We all know that Hillary wore the pants in that family, since Clinton never even had his...

I wonder if Clinton thought:

Uh gee. Dat womin I got hitched to want to be a prezdent somday. So no mater wat I do, she aint evir goin to leaf me, as dat wudn't be gud fir her publik imaj. Mite as will haf a lil fun senz I kan. :hammer:

Hitlery is the :devil: or at least a friend of his. I shudder when I think of her running for president some day.

Originally posted by Lucky
But all criticism aside, now is not the time for a lame duck president. Unless you like getting blown up by Muslims.

I take it you're not gonna start a reelect Jimmy Carter campaign, then.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Zimfan
"Billy" Carter? I must of missed that one in history class.

P.S. On a serious note, Jimmy Carter was a pretty crappy president.

How funny that I wrote 'Billy' Carter! :chuckle: :doh:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by karstkid
Huh! JFK was a democrat.


JFK was a Conservative compared to todays liberal democrats. He staved off a crisis with the Russians and he enacted one of the biggest tax cuts in history. He realized that letting taxpayers keep more of their money was good for the economy.

[Like Clinton, he had a hard time keeping his pants on and he was probably a drug addict -pain killers]

[Mr. 5020]

How the parties have changed...:think:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky
What's more "baldly" and "demonstrably" then lying under oath like Clinton did? I could care less if Clinton's lied about private consensual bj's. I don't care if Clinton was doing animals! And I certainly would not want to hear about that! At least his lies did not result in the unjustified deaths of thousands of innocent people!!

What's far more serious is lying about, distorting, and exaggerating reasons for invading a county that was not a threat to America or other countries. Bush had no hard empirical evidence for WMD or significant Iraqi international terrorism directed toward America.

Lies, distortions, and exaggerations, given the absence of hard empirical pre-war evidence, that result in an unnecessary military invasion of a country, violating international law, and the unnecessary killing of many thousands of innocent civilians, as well as many more Iraqi soldiers (who were not threatening America or other countries), is far more worthy of impeachment than lying about bj's.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky
At least Bush is trying to get important things done, like putting an end to terrorism. If Bush were serious about putting an end to terrorism, he would not have unnecessarily invaded Iraq. This invasion not only energized existing terrorists and significantly increased recruitment of new terrorists, but also caused the loss of support by most of the other countries of the world, including our traditional allies. If Bush were serious about fighting terrorism, he would have put more resources toward fighting the root causes of terrorism. Just like killing criminals does to stop crime, simply killing terrorists does not stop terrorism. Killing terrorists does not address the root causes terrorism, which are fear, hatred and ignorance. Here is what Rumsfeld recently stated (my bold):
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

[taoist]

BillyBob How funny that I wrote 'Billy' Carter! :chuckle: :doh: HA! Don't even pretend you ever turned down a can of "Billy Beer." (Yes, Zimmy, it actually existed, named after Jimmy's little brother. It tasted like PBR.)

[BillyBob]

I remember 'Billy Beer', but I never tried one. I don't think I ever saw them in the stores.

I bet they are collectors items now. :cheers:

[HerodionRomulus]

deleted redundancy

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by taoist
BillyBob HA! Don't even pretend you ever turned down a can of "Billy Beer." (Yes, Zimmy, it actually existed, named after Jimmy's little brother. It tasted like PBR.)

Hey, don't even insult PBR like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Killing terrorists does not address the root causes terrorism, which are fear, hatred and ignorance.

Billy;
Now why would we want to cater to a bunch of terrorists? :kookoo: Killing them is the best way to deal with killers.

Perhaps you would prefer that they extort us? Do you think that if we met certain demands of theirs that they would stop terrorizing us? If you think that, you are unaware of the real reason we are the target of their terrorism. I suppose that the Italians didn't cave into their extortions, so the terrorists were justified in blowing up a few dozen Italians in Iraq. And what is the reason that the terrorists are killing Iraqi's, Saudi's and Brits?

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by taoist
BillyBob HA! Don't even pretend you ever turned down a can of "Billy Beer." (Yes, Zimmy, it actually existed, named after Jimmy's little brother. It tasted like PBR.)

And I thought Billy Carter was just some genetically engineered combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Now there's a scary thought. :shocked:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Killing terrorists does not address the root causes terrorism, which are fear, hatred and ignorance.

Billy;
Now why would we want to cater to a bunch of terrorists? :kookoo: Killing them is the best way to deal with killers.

Perhaps you would prefer that they extort us? Do you think that if we met certain demands of theirs that they would stop terrorizing us? If you think that, you are unaware of the real reason we are the target of their terrorism. I suppose that the Italians didn't cave into their extortions, so the terrorists were justified in blowing up a few dozen Italians in Iraq. And what is the reason that the terrorists are killing Iraqi's, Saudi's and Brits? Here is an interesting article regarding this issue:

=======================
September 23

Whatever happened to root causes?

by Lowell Feld


This week, just over two years after 9/11, a high-level conference on "Fighting Terrorism for Humanity: A Conference on the Roots of Evil " is being held in New York City. The event, organized by the International Peace Academy and the Norwegian Mission to the United Nations, aims to "distinguish the real roots and origins of terrorism" and to "identify the breeding grounds and the origins of hate in order to eliminate them." Discussion will center on a report by an international panel of experts on terrorism, prepared under the auspices of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Distinguished speakers at the New York conference include Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Professor Elie Weisel, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik of Norway.

One speaker who will be in New York this week, but certainly not for this conference, is our own President, George W. Bush. For "Dubya" and his far-right-wing Administration, root causes are words never spoken out loud. Why are these words seemingly verboten by the Bush Administration?

For starters, root causes don't match the Bush worldview because they are complicated and "gray," and that's just not the way Bush or the right wing thinks. On the contrary, Bush and his Christian Right allies tend to see things in simplistic and simple-minded black and white, even Apocalyptic, terms. To these people, root causes are liberal, secular, over-intellectualized, America-hating garbage. And politically they are a threat, because if root causes exist, then 9/11 and the "war on terrorism" cease to fit into the Bush Administration's simplistic good and evil paradigm.

Another major problem for the right wing in looking at root causes is that such an examination might imply that the United States is not the completely innocent victim of maniacal, psychopathic terrorists. Instead, the situation might be a great deal more complicated, with U.S. behavior, both intentional and unintentional, contributing to the terrorism unleashed against it. This goes against the right wing's notion of the United States as a shining city on a hill, an exceptionalist power not subject to the rules that govern everyone else.

Worst of all, if there are root causes of terrorism, and certain U.S. policies contribute to them, the United States would need to reexamine, and perhaps adjust some of its behavior patterns. For instance, the United States might consider cutting its support for corrupt dictatorships around the world, reducing its oil imports from places like Saudi Arabia, changing its policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, even re-examining the U.S- and Western-dominated, globalized, profoundly unequal world economic system.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, even suggesting such things could easily get one branded as a "traitor" by extreme right-wingers like Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell. These were the people, remember, who said that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" (Coulter), and who blamed "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians" for 9/11 (Falwell). We proceed here, then, at the risk of earning Ann Coulter's and Jerry Falwell's wrath.

First, the international panel of terrorism experts found the widespread belief that terrorists are "insane" or "irrational" actors to be incorrect. Insane people don't normally travel thousands of miles to crash themselves into buildings unless they have a damned good reason, at least from their own perspective, and the ability to carry out their plan. This requires at least a degree of sanity, planning, and rationality. And, as far as we know, none of the 9/11 hijackers was clinically "insane," none had been released recently from mental hospitals, and none had shown any other signs of emotional "craziness" or "irrationality" of which we are aware. At a minimum, then, at least some of the 9/11 hijackers must have felt that fighting America was a cause for which killing and dying made sense. Perhaps we would benefit from thinking about why that might have been the case.

How about the widespread belief that suicide terrorism is a product of Islam per se? That's a false one too, according to the international terrorism panel, and even -- to paraphrase Ann Coulter -- "slanderous." What is true, however, is that most 9/11 hijackers were adherents of the rabidly fundamentalist strain of Islam known as Wahhabism. This fundamentalist brand of Islam is far from the dominant strain in the Muslim world, but our great ally Saudi Arabia uses part of the oil money we send it when we fill up our SUVs and Hummers in order to export Wahhabism, with its crude anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism, around the world.
What about the liberal notion that poverty and terrorism are linked? According to the terrorism panel, this relationship is "weak and indirect" at best. A more direct link than poverty is income inequality. A world in which 20 percent of the people hold 80 percent of the wealth and consume 80 percent of the resources is not likely to be a stable place to live. It is also not sustainable, environmentally or otherwise. As The Atlantic's Robert Kaplan summarizes, "in the developing world environmental stress will present people with a choice that is increasingly among totalitarianism (as in Iraq), fascist-tending mini-states (as in Serb-held Bosnia), and road-warrior cultures (as in Somalia)." And as Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Programme, has stated, "desperate people can resort to desperate solutions. They may care little about themselves and the people they hurt."

Finally, how about the Bush/right-wing view that terrorism is the result of a simplistic, mechanical cause-and-effect relationship? Well…no. Actually, according to the panel, terrorists are actors capable of nuance, making choices based on "the limitations and possibilities of the situation" in order "to achieve political objectives."

Several possible root causes of terrorism that the Bush Administration certainly doesn't want to talk about were identified by the terrorism experts' report:

"lack of democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law";

rapid modernization and a "dissolution of traditional norms and social patterns";

hegemony and inequality of power, where one power -- the United States in the current international system -- possesses overwhelming power compared to other actors, and where "the latter see no other realistic ways to forward their cause by normal political or military means";

"powerful external actors upholding illegitimate governments";

"historical antecedents of political violence, civil wars, revolutions, dictatorships or occupation"; and

"failure … by the state to integrate dissident groups or emerging social classes," which leads educated young people with few job prospects to seek alternative forms of expressing their frustration, such as violence and terror.
Lack of democracy and civil liberties is a characteristic of many major U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, home countries to all the 9/11 hijackers. The U.S. role here is in buying these countries' oil (Saudi Arabia), providing billions of dollars per year in civilian and military aid (Egypt), and by helping to prop up unpleasant regimes that are hated by the local populations.

Rapid modernization and dissolution of "traditional values" is a major issue for many countries, particularly those in the Muslim and Arab worlds. In these countries, people are proud of their heritage, their religion, and especially their language. Many people in these countries feel that they are under assault by U.S.-led, English-language, capitalistic globalization. Sure, Egyptians and Saudis may tune in to "Baywatch" and MTV, and they may even enjoy them, but there is also an underlying sadness and anger at the loss of Arab and Muslim cultural identity.

This anger is exacerbated by the (correct) perception that the United States represents an overwhelming economic, cultural, political, and military power in today's world. With no counterbalancing force, the United States ends up being blamed for many frustrations and grievances, even those with which it has had nothing to do. Many people see no way to stand up to the United States by conventional means, to gain a foothold in the global economy, or even to make movies in their own language. That leads to anger and, in some cases, violent rage.

This rage is fueled even further by perceived U.S. support for nasty, corrupt, authoritarian, violent "anti-communist" regimes and dictators over the past several decades. The United States, a powerful external actor, is also blamed for past wars, dictatorships, and oppression by tyrannical regimes. This is not just a false perception. For instance, in 1991 the United States encouraged Shi'ites in southern Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. When they did, tens of thousands of Shi'ites were slaughtered -- predictably -- by Saddam Hussein's forces, while the United States stood by and did nothing. Families of the victims undoubtedly have not forgotten this U.S. inaction.

Finally, the failure of many U.S.-allied regimes to provide their burgeoning, youthful populations with opportunities for economic and political expression is often blamed on the United States specifically and the West in general. This may not be completely fair, but on the other hand, the rich, industrialized nations spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year subsidizing their agricultural sectors, driving many developing countries' farm sectors out of business. Protectionist measures in the textile, steel, and other sectors of industrialized countries also are not imaginary, and there is no doubt that these help to keep imports from developing countries out, removing yet another potential source of economic growth and jobs.

In short, the 9/11 attacks, while in no way morally justifiable, are very much explainable upon careful reflection and study, as the conference in New York City this week proves. In spite of the Bush Administration's desperate denials and delusions, there really are root causes of terrorism, there really are more shades of gray than the right wing's infantile black and white worldview allows, and there really are some problems that can't be solved with a few guided missiles and B-1 bombers.

Unfortunately, the world after 9/11 remains a deeply unhealthy place, with America -- the sole superpower -- still not fully grasping its own predicament. This situation is very unfortunate, because the root causes of terrorism are not going to get any better on their own, and if not addressed forcefully will pose a continuing threat to U.S. national security.

From: http://www.dailygusto.com/news/september/root-092303.html
=======================

[Skeptic]

Anyone care about root causes? Or should we just kill anyone we suspect is a terrorist, just in case they really are?

[BillyBob]

I couldn't care less about root causes, kill them all!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I couldn't care less about root causes, kill them all! If root causes are not addressed, then our future will be a never-ending killing spree. As long as the root causes of terrorism are not addressed, there will always be a supply of terrorists to kill.

But, I bet you like that scenario, right? As long as there are terrorists to kill, you're happy?

You seem to want an increasing supply of terrorists. Bush is fulfilling your wishes. Whereas I want decreasing supply of terrorists.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If root causes are not addressed, then our future will be a never-ending killing spree. As long as the root causes of terrorism are not addressed, there will always be a supply of terrorists to kill.

But, I bet you like that scenario, right? As long as there are terrorists to kill, you're happy?

You seem to want an increasing supply of terrorists. Bush is fulfilling your wishes. Whereas I want decreasing supply of terrorists. Maybe BB owns stock in the gun industry...

[Elena Marie]

Rapid modernization and dissolution of "traditional values" is a major issue for many countries, particularly those in the Muslim and Arab worlds. In these countries, people are proud of their heritage, their religion, and especially their language. Many people in these countries feel that they are under assault by U.S.-led, English-language, capitalistic globalization. Sure, Egyptians and Saudis may tune in to "Baywatch" and MTV, and they may even enjoy them, but there is also an underlying sadness and anger at the loss of Arab and Muslim cultural identity.

Funny, but isn't this the same thing being said by many people on this very forum? See Purex's post here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10793&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) for more. So, it's okay for Muslims, but not for Americans? Do I detect a double-standard at work here?

This anger is exacerbated by the (correct) perception that the United States represents an overwhelming economic, cultural, political, and military power in today's world. With no counterbalancing force, the United States ends up being blamed for many frustrations and grievances, even those with which it has had nothing to do. Many people see no way to stand up to the United States by conventional means, to gain a foothold in the global economy, or even to make movies in their own language. That leads to anger and, in some cases, violent rage.

Okay, let me make sure I understand this. The residents of these tin pot countries are mad because they can't compete with us with the tools and structure they have, so rather than figuring out how to fix their situation so they can compete, they decide to kill us all (and don't give me any bull about they aren't out to kill us all--they've said it themselves and I heard it with my own two ears.) And we're supposed to "address their root causes?" How would we do that? Oh yeah, by giving them money, and compromising our own security via allowing cheap (and likely Hep A infected) food imports to run our own farmers out of business, and . . ..?

I don't know who this Lowell Feld fella is, but I can tell from the article that Americans' lives aren't nearly as important to him as the lives of those who have sworn to kill every American man, woman and child.

Sometimes I gotta wonder. . ..

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Elena Marie
And we're supposed to "address their root causes?" How would we do that? Oh yeah, by giving them money, and compromising our own security via allowing cheap (and likely Hep A infected) food imports to run our own farmers out of business, and . . ..?

I don't know who this Lowell Feld fella is, but I can tell from the article that Americans' lives aren't nearly as important to him as the lives of those who have sworn to kill every American man, woman and child.

Sometimes I gotta wonder. . .. And your solution to international terrorism is ...?

Just kill them all? But, you just said: "...they decide to kill us all (and don't give me any bull about they aren't out to kill us all--they've said it themselves and I heard it with my own two ears.)"

Is it simply a case of kill them before they kill us? If so, our future, for generations to come, will be quite bloody. There are better ways.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If root causes are not addressed, then our future will be a never-ending killing spree. As long as the root causes of terrorism are not addressed, there will always be a supply of terrorists to kill.

But, I bet you like that scenario, right? As long as there are terrorists to kill, you're happy?

You seem to want an increasing supply of terrorists. Bush is fulfilling your wishes. Whereas I want decreasing supply of terrorists.


I'm not interested in root causes, what the heck do you propose to do about the 'root cause' of Islam???????

While you're wasting your time trying to understand terrorists, I'll be participating in their extermination.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I'm not interested in root causes, what the heck do you propose to do about the 'root cause' of Islam???????Kill 'em.

[BillyBob]

YEAH!!!!!!!!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I'm not interested in root causes, what the heck do you propose to do about the 'root cause' of Islam??????? The same as I propose for the root cause of Christianity. Rational dialog and education.

While you're wasting your time trying to understand terrorists, I'll be participating in their extermination. Spoken like a true ignoramus.

How can you truly exterminate terrorists without knowing how they reproduce? Perhaps we should kill them before they are old enough to reproduce? Yea, that's the ticket!! :kookoo:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
While you're wasting your time trying to understand terrorists, I'll be participating in their extermination. I'll make you a deal: you wipe out all the Muslims, and I wipe out all the Christians.

Then maybe folks with walking-around sense can get back to work running things...:devil:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020
Kill 'em.

Well, at least we know you're not pro-life.

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by Skeptic
And your solution to international terrorism is ...?

Just kill them all? But, you just said: "...they decide to kill us all (and don't give me any bull about they aren't out to kill us all--they've said it themselves and I heard it with my own two ears.)"

Is it simply a case of kill them before they kill us? If so, our future, for generations to come, will be quite bloody. There are better ways.

So what do you propose?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
How can you truly exterminate terrorists without knowing how they reproduce?

Billy;
I suppose they don't use the 'missionary' postion! :eek: Do they have a special way of reproducing that I'm not aware of? :noway:

Skeptic;
Perhaps we should kill them before they are old enough to reproduce? Yea, that's the ticket!!

Billy;
:think:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald
I'll make you a deal: you wipe out all the Muslims, and I wipe out all the Christians.

Then maybe folks with walking-around sense can get back to work running things...:devil:


:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Elena Marie
So what do you propose? I tend to agree with Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman:

============================
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT TERRORISM?
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, (retired).

October 2001

"Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we are the targets of terrorism. You said that we are the target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

Baloney! We are the target of terrorist because we stand for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things."

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism, and in the future, nuclear terrorism."

A FEW YEARS AGO, terrorists destroyed two U.S. embassies. President Clinton retaliated against suspected facilities of Osama bin Laden. In his television address, the President told the American people that we were the targets of terrorism because we stood for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

On that occasion, I wrote: "Tell people the truth, Mr. President ... about terrorism, not about poor Monica. If your lies about terrorism go unchallenged, then the terror war you have unleashed will likely continue until it destroys us.

"The threat of nuclear terrorism is closing in upon us. Chemical terrorism is at hand, and biological terrorism is a future danger. None of our thousands of nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. These idols of plutonium, titanium, and steel are impotent. Our worship of them for over five decades has not brought us security, only greater danger. No 'Star Wars' system ... no matter how technically advanced, no matter how many trillions of dollars was poured into it ... can protect us from even a single terrorist bomb. Not one weapon in our vast arsenal can shield us from a nuclear weapon delivered in a sailboat or a Piper Cub or a suitcase or a Ryder rental truck.

Not a penny of the 273 billion dollars a year we spend on so-called defense can actually defend us against a terrorist bomb. Nothing in our enormous military establishment can actually give us one whit of security. That is a military fact.

"Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we are the targets of terrorism. You said that we are the target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

Baloney! We are the target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things.

"In how many countries have we deposed popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet military dictators who were willing to sell out their own people to American multinational corporations?

"We did it in Iran when we deposed Mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. We replaced him with the Shah, and trained, armed, and paid his hated Savak national guard, which enslaved and brutalized the people of Iran. All to protect the financial interests of our oil companies. Is it any wonder there are people in Iran who hate us?

"We did it in Chile when we deposed Allende, democratically elected by the people to introduce socialism. We replaced him with the brutal right-wing military dictator, General Pinochet. Chile has still not recovered.

"We did it in Vietnam when we thwarted democratic elections in the South which would have united the country under Ho Chi Minh. We replaced him with a series of ineffectual puppet crooks who invited us to comein and slaughter their people, and we did. (I flew 101 combat missions in that war which you properly opposed.)

"We did it in Iraq, where we killed a quarter of a million civilians in a failed attempt to topple Saddam Hussein, and where we have killed a million since then with our sanctions. About half of these innocent victims have been children under the age of five.

"And, of course, how many times have we done it in Nicaragua and all the other banana republics of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the people who worked it. We replaced them with murderous tyrants who would sell out and control their own people so that the wealth of the land could be taken out by Domino Sugar, the United Fruit Company, Folgers, and Chiquita Banana.

"In country after country, our government has thwarted democracy, stifled freedom, and trampled human rights. That's why we are hated around the world.

And that's why we are the target of terrorists.

"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden.

Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No.

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights.

We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism, and in the future, nuclear terrorism.

"Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our government's ways.

"Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, we must send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children.

"Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children every day with our sanctions, we must help them rebuild their electric powerplants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals; all the things we destroyed in our war against them and prevented them from rebuilding with our sanctions.

"Instead of seeking to be king of the hill, we must become a responsible member of the family of nations. Instead of stationing hundreds of thousands of troops around the world to protect the financial interests of our multinational corporations, we must bring them home and expand the Peace Corps.

"Instead of training terrorists and death squads in the techniques of torture and assassination, we must close the School of the Americas (no matter what name they use). Instead of supporting military dictatorships, we must support true democracy; the right of the people to choose their own leaders. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we must abolish the CIA and give the money to relief agencies.

"In short, we do good instead of evil. We become the good guys, once again.

The threat of terrorism would vanish. That is the truth, Mr. President. That is what the American people need to hear. We are good people. We only need to be told the truth and given the vision. You can do it, Mr. President. Stop the killing. Stop the justifying. Stop the retaliating. Put people first.

Tell them the truth."

Needless to say, he didn't ... and neither has George W. Bush. Well, the seeds our policies have planted have borne their bitter fruit. The World Trade Center is gone. The Pentagon is damaged. And thousands of Americans have died. Almost every TV pundit is crying for massive military retaliation against whoever might have done it (assumedly the same Osama bin Laden) and against whoever harbors or aids theterrorists (most notably the Taliban government of Afghanistan). Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post screams "Kill the bastards! Train assassins, hire mercenaries, put a couple of million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive, preferably dead. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts." It's tempting to agree. I have no sympathy for the psychopaths that killed thousands of our people. There is no excuse for such acts. If I was recalled to active duty, I would go in a heartbeat. At the same time, all my military experience and knowledge tells me that retaliation hasn't rid us of the problem in the past, and won't this time.

By far the world's best anti-terrorist apparatus is Israel's. Measured in military terms, it has been phenomenally successful. Yet Israel still suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. If retaliation worked, Israelis would be the world's most secure people.

Only one thing has ever ended a terrorist campaign -- denying the terrorist organization the support of the larger community it represents. And the only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people. If indeed Osama bin Laden was behind the four hijackings and subsequent carnage, that means addressing the concerns of the Arabs and Muslims in general and of the Palestinians in particular. It does NOT mean abandoning Israel. But it may very well mean withdrawing financial and military support until they abandon the settlements in occupied territory and return to 1967 borders. It may also mean allowing Arab countries to have leaders of their own choosing, not hand-picked, CIA-installed dictators willing to cooperate with Western oil companies.

Chester Gillings has said it very well: "How do we fight back against bin Laden? The first thing we must ask ourselves is what is it we hope to achieve -- security or revenge? The two are mutually exclusive; seek revenge and we WILL reduce our security. If it is security we seek, then we must begin to answer the tough questions -- what are the grievances of the Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is our real culpability for those grievances? Where we find legitimate culpability, we must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible. Where we cannot find culpability or a cure, we must communicate honestly our positions directly to the Arab people. In short, our best course of action is to remove ourselves as a combatant in the disputes of the region."

To kill bin Laden now would be to make him an eternal martyr. Thousands would rise up to take his place. In another year, we would face another round of terrorism, probably much worse even than this one. Yet there is another way.

In the short term, we must protect ourselves from those who already hate us. This means increased security and better intelligence. I proposed to members of Congress in March that we should deny any funds for "Star Wars" until such time as the Executive Branch could show that they are doing all possible research on the detection and interception of weapons of mass destruction entering the country clandestinely (a far greater threat than ballistic missiles). There are lots of steps which can be taken to increase security without detracting from civil rights. But in the long term, we must change our policies to stop causing the fear and hatred which creates new terrorists. Becoming independent of foreign oil through conservation, energy efficiency, production of energy from renewable sources, and a transition to non-polluting transportation will allow us to adopt a more rational policy toward the Middle East.

The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are good, peaceful people. But enough of them, in their desperation and anger and fear, have turned first to Arafat and now to bin Laden to relieve their misery. Remove the desperation, give them some hope, and support for terrorism will evaporate. At that point bin

Laden will be forced to abandon terrorism (as has Arafat) or be treated like a common criminal. Either way, he and his money cease to be a threat. We CAN have security ... or we can have revenge. We cannot have both.

From: http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/politics/afghan_bowman.htm
============================

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
:darwinsm: So, BillyBob. What do you want security or revenge?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I tend to agree with Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman:

============================
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT TERRORISM?
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, (retired).

October 2001

"Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we are the targets of terrorism. You said that we are the target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

Baloney! We are the target of terrorist because we stand for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things."

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism, and in the future, nuclear terrorism."

A FEW YEARS AGO, terrorists destroyed two U.S. embassies. President Clinton retaliated against suspected facilities of Osama bin Laden. In his television address, the President told the American people that we were the targets of terrorism because we stood for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

On that occasion, I wrote: "Tell people the truth, Mr. President ... about terrorism, not about poor Monica. If your lies about terrorism go unchallenged, then the terror war you have unleashed will likely continue until it destroys us.

"The threat of nuclear terrorism is closing in upon us. Chemical terrorism is at hand, and biological terrorism is a future danger. None of our thousands of nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. These idols of plutonium, titanium, and steel are impotent. Our worship of them for over five decades has not brought us security, only greater danger. No 'Star Wars' system ... no matter how technically advanced, no matter how many trillions of dollars was poured into it ... can protect us from even a single terrorist bomb. Not one weapon in our vast arsenal can shield us from a nuclear weapon delivered in a sailboat or a Piper Cub or a suitcase or a Ryder rental truck.

Not a penny of the 273 billion dollars a year we spend on so-called defense can actually defend us against a terrorist bomb. Nothing in our enormous military establishment can actually give us one whit of security. That is a military fact.

"Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we are the targets of terrorism. You said that we are the target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

Baloney! We are the target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things.

"In how many countries have we deposed popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet military dictators who were willing to sell out their own people to American multinational corporations?

"We did it in Iran when we deposed Mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. We replaced him with the Shah, and trained, armed, and paid his hated Savak national guard, which enslaved and brutalized the people of Iran. All to protect the financial interests of our oil companies. Is it any wonder there are people in Iran who hate us?

"We did it in Chile when we deposed Allende, democratically elected by the people to introduce socialism. We replaced him with the brutal right-wing military dictator, General Pinochet. Chile has still not recovered.

"We did it in Vietnam when we thwarted democratic elections in the South which would have united the country under Ho Chi Minh. We replaced him with a series of ineffectual puppet crooks who invited us to comein and slaughter their people, and we did. (I flew 101 combat missions in that war which you properly opposed.)

"We did it in Iraq, where we killed a quarter of a million civilians in a failed attempt to topple Saddam Hussein, and where we have killed a million since then with our sanctions. About half of these innocent victims have been children under the age of five.

"And, of course, how many times have we done it in Nicaragua and all the other banana republics of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the people who worked it. We replaced them with murderous tyrants who would sell out and control their own people so that the wealth of the land could be taken out by Domino Sugar, the United Fruit Company, Folgers, and Chiquita Banana.

"In country after country, our government has thwarted democracy, stifled freedom, and trampled human rights. That's why we are hated around the world.

And that's why we are the target of terrorists.

"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden.

Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No.

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights.

We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism, and in the future, nuclear terrorism.

"Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our government's ways.

"Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, we must send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children.

"Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children every day with our sanctions, we must help them rebuild their electric powerplants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals; all the things we destroyed in our war against them and prevented them from rebuilding with our sanctions.

"Instead of seeking to be king of the hill, we must become a responsible member of the family of nations. Instead of stationing hundreds of thousands of troops around the world to protect the financial interests of our multinational corporations, we must bring them home and expand the Peace Corps.

"Instead of training terrorists and death squads in the techniques of torture and assassination, we must close the School of the Americas (no matter what name they use). Instead of supporting military dictatorships, we must support true democracy; the right of the people to choose their own leaders. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we must abolish the CIA and give the money to relief agencies.

"In short, we do good instead of evil. We become the good guys, once again.

The threat of t