from The Daily Show:
"After months and months of searching, we finally found the guy... who had nothing to do with September 11"
Printable View
from The Daily Show:
"After months and months of searching, we finally found the guy... who had nothing to do with September 11"
I see the logic, but even if he had nothing to do with Al Quieda I'm sure he didn't mind funding a terrorist every now and then and maybe even training his own.
My main concern is this:
Now that Saddam has been bagged (yay!), what's Bush going to do? The diversion in Iraq has been brought to conclusion. What about the main bad guy here? The one who blew up the Twin Towers and attacked the Pentagon?? Now Bush is going to spend the next 10 months dodging questions about Bin Laden and responding with "we got Saddam." Osama has been at large for over two years and nothing has been said about him. Afghanistan is in shambles and the gov. has been skirting around the issue. Saddam's capture will help Bush in the short term, but unless new advances are made in the hunt for Bin Laden (you know, the guy who started the war on terror?) Bush is going to be in trouble.
Don't misread me though. I'm glad we got Saddam but it's kind of like beating up the drunken neighbor who's been mouthing off for 10 years, while the neighbor who poisoned your cat, dented your car, came on to your daughter, and tried to rob your house remains at large. Sure, the drunk abused his kids and wife, but he wasn't that much of a threat to you. Now that the little man is gone, what are you going to do about the real threat?
If we want Osama we might have to knock is some doors and the international community won't like that, I say fuck them because they usually have their priorities mixed up and it wasn't their countries that got hit by this attack but it's still a matter of concern.
Melf is the master of simplistic wit... I think Almaci's last post will be my new sig.
SC
We get the idea; Saddam was a nobody that destroyed his WMDs long ago, and suddenly supposed global human rights supporters don't give a fuck about Iraqis... But, what would YOU like Bush to do? We have 11k US troops in Afganistan with more NATO support along (not sure about their involvement tho). So, would you like him to have those troops cross into the Pakistani border? Should he divert back another 10k, 20k, or 30k troops to improve the search odds? Do you really, really want that bastard caught right now like I do? I mean, some say he had nothing to do with 9-11... A popular theory floated around in Arabdom was that 4,000 Jews stayed home that day. Some say we doctored the confession tape of Bin Laden... Pretty convincing arguments were made from what I saw . . . I dunno, I hear other points of view that we're the bullies, and Bin Laden was just looking out for the Palestinians cause he loves them with all his heart; just trying to protect 'em from the evil Jews that don't seem to wanna die out easily... I just don't know who or what the real threat is these days, ya know...? Are we sure Bin Laden is even alive? Implied in your whole post is that he's alive and planning his next attack. Should I be afraid? I know we only got half of his top guys with lots of help from Pakistan, so I don't doubt the rest could be up to something... Maybe I'm looking at this whole thing wrong... Maybe it's BUSH that's the real imminent threat, eh? Think about it, yo!!! And, maybe, just maybe, the regime-change really needed to take place over here and NOT, NOT over there.... Woah, damn, I scare myself sometimes... OMG! Stone, save me from this severe fringe left-wingness... It's Almaci, he's inside my head and I can't get him out =\.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Anyway, um, here's my prediction if Bin Laden was captured: Let's see, we'd have the International Red Cross and the ACLU come out and demand to check his cell to ensure he's got his cable-tv access, his koran, plus all the rights afforded to him by the Geneva conventions (that illegal combatant status will just not do). We'll have democrats along with the hard Left shift to the next issue of attack and discuss how we need to worry about the next potential 1000 Bin Ladens that he's created. That, we need to track down all the followers he's inspired; cells he's setup around the world, etc... "No, no, folks, it's a somber day of celebration as we must prepare for the true work ahead of us... We've gotta internationalize internationalize internationalize now more than ever (hint hint: France, Germany, Russia)!!!! We've gotta work better with our allies to track terrorist funds, put more pressure on the Saudis and not buddy up with 'em like the Bush oil cronies have been doing... With Bush's squandered sympathy after 9-11, to the fervent anti-Americanism worldwide we're at now, will his capture really make a difference? Where will he be tried and by whom? Will the Arab world erupt in extremist fervor if he's convicted??? Could this all actually backfire on the Bush administration and the US?"
I think the shoe fits as far as the reactions by patriotic Bush-hating liberals whenever we've had successes (who don't like their patriotism questioned)... So yeah, Bush will be in trouble now cause he'll dodge the issue of Bin Laden you say... Ok, democrats still got their ace up in their hole with, "Where's Bin Laden Mr. Bush? Hmmm?? Eh?? Where? The American inquiring minds want to know..." However, given the Clinton administration's failed attempts at capturing Bin Laden, should we trust a new democrat for the job? I imagine your point is Bush isn't up to the task... So, who is then? Is Howard Dean, if elected, gonna turn things around and march some troops right up into the heart of Pakistan to get him?? I'd like to know what the alternative plan is, if any, since "Bush failed to 'find' him..."
Repeating "Bush can't find Bin Laden" over and over is not much of a fucking plan! Oh sure, we can make great snide remarks and have a good laugh about Bush catching the wrong guy, fine, but is there a solution anywhere here? No. Zip. Nadda. So, I guess I got your message man.. Bush sucks; he got the wrong guy; Iraq is Veitnam II and was a diversion to the 'bad' economy so that's that, I suppose... The "coalition of the unhappy" wants everyone else to feel the same way, boohoo. Equality in misery. Well, okie doke, thx. I learned my lesson, I'll never ever ever ever ever vote republican. To borrow that Dick's comment here, "Bush, a miserable, miserable failure..." Ya know, cause I'm sure Mr. 'Dick' Gephardt couldn't 'fuck' things up any worse than Bush has... Nobody could, har har friggity har.
[/rant]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
You see in Gohrons world Terorism is not a problem if the US is suportive(the terorist attacks against Turkish targets in the 80s by Armenian terrorists, the financial backing and support Basque seperatists and IRA received from within the US etcetera) of the terrorist acts, its only a problem when the US is attacked.
Nevermind the fact that the entire world mobilised behind the US after 9/11 and agreed on the invasion of Afghanistan, that doesnt matter, Gohron here has these ideas in his head whereby the US is the poor little victim and the rest of the world wants to kick the poor old US down in the dirt, the rest of the world in his view of course has never had to deal with terrorism so how could they understand what the US is going trough.
No sir Turkey didnt have the PKK and Armenian fractions to deal with, Greece didnt suffer from The November 17th group, and surely The Shining path are just a bunch of south american philosophers, IRA are choir boys etcetera etcetera.
Almaci.Quote:
the terorist attacks against Turkish targets in the 80s by Armenian terrorists, the financial backing and support Basque seperatists and IRA received from within the US etcetera
Read this slowly.
A...COUNTRY'S...FOREIGN...POLICY...CAN...CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
We have made mistakes in the past by supporting regimes that support terrorists, or by allowing American citizens to support terrorists (IRA donations, so on).
We made a mistake by leaving Saddam in power. We may have made a mistake by collaborating with Saddam in the '80s. I don't know, because I can't rewind time, and see what would have happened had we not opposed the USSR's support of Iran.
Our country's foreign policy is shifting. Cheney realized the mistakes of Bush I's administration in leaving Saddam in power. Cheney then began to push Bush II towards removing Saddam. We are, hopefully, moving towards no longer supporting any regime that uses terrorism.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
(I don't support terrorism. But, as an aside, I have a hard time believing that you're bitching about what the Armenians did to the Turks. It's like an Iraqi bitching about Kurdist separatists.)
On your next U.S. tour, make sure to avoid Glendale, California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
I live next door to Little Armenia in Los Angeles, and I know a few people who would compare Almaci's comments to a German complaining about Jewish terrorists during WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Planet