Fellow Countrymen

[Hook Dem]

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII! ).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 19 98; Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocation's by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who claimed to be a Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a! time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.

If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

[SWC Bonfire]

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
:tu

[Nbadan]

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushIraqSpeech/images/thompson.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushIraqSpeech/images/keefe.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushIraqSpeech/images/thompson4.jpg

[Cant_Be_Faded]

that second cartoon is the best and most pertinent to the thread.

[spurster]

1. When did the threat to us start?

There are other causes in addition to religious fanaticism and power-hungry despots.

Our addiction to cheap oil and our inability/unwillingness to do much about it.

Using the Middle East as pawns in the Cold War.

Our lack of respect for human rights for non-Americans.

[Vashner]

Human Rights? What Gitmo again? Fuck that spin.. you don't know shit about what troops have been thru with Japan do you?

Our lack of respect for human rights.. .WHAT KIND OF FUCKING brainwash BS is that?
USA is the worlds defender and protector of human rights.

[foodie2]

Our lack of respect for human rights.. .WHAT KIND OF FUCKING brainwash BS is that?
USA is the worlds defender and protector of human rights.

Just keep telling yourself that. And keep sticking your head in the sand.

[exstatic]

Human Rights? What Gitmo again? Fuck that spin.. you don't know shit about what troops have been thru with Japan do you?

...and wasn't it wrong for Japan to do it? Using a WWII Axis country to justify what we are doing is fucking stupid. They were wrong. We are wrong.

[JoeChalupa]

I support our troops 100% and we must finish what we started.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more." JFK

[Hook Dem]

Thanks Joe......at least you get it!

[MannyIsGod]

Human Rights? What Gitmo again? Fuck that spin.. you don't know shit about what troops have been thru with Japan do you?

Our lack of respect for human rights.. .WHAT KIND OF FUCKING brainwash BS is that?
USA is the worlds defender and protector of human rights.
I'm not going to speak for Spurster, but I don't think he was refering to Gitmo.

I think he was refering to our support for people like the Shah in Iran, the royal families in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, and Israeli violations of human rights.

[SWC Bonfire]

I'm not going to speak for Spurster, but I don't think he was refering to Gitmo.

I think he was refering to our support for people like the Shah in Iran, the royal families in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, and Israeli violations of human rights.

The rights that we take advantage of in the US do not exist in parts of the world, yet we still have to deal with the rest of the world. Sticking our head in the sand is not really an option anymore based on how much smaller the world has become.

Not taking down Saddam after the Gulf War could be construed by some as a tacit approval of his regime, and a confirmation to terrorists believing that the west could be exploited further by terror because they were unwilling to pay the ultimate price. Granted, there were a lot of other factors involved, but there are also a lot of other factors in dealing with the Saud family & other Middle East nations.

[Extra Stout]

1. When did the threat to us start?

There are other causes in addition to religious fanaticism and power-hungry despots.

Our addiction to cheap oil and our inability/unwillingness to do much about it.

Using the Middle East as pawns in the Cold War.

Our lack of respect for human rights for non-Americans.Al-Qaeda laid out exactly why they are at war with us back in 1997. Believe it or not, left-wing criticisms of the United States did not figure prominently.

Their major beefs:

1. We are not Muslim, and yet we are powerful.
2. We prevent them from annihilating Israel and exterminating the Jews.
3. We keep troops on Muslim soil to prevent them from overthrowing regimes like Saudi Arabia, and now, Iraq.
4. They want control of the oil wealth for themselves.
5. Our popular culture is infiltrating their countries and corrupting their young people.
6. We prevent them from annihilating India and subjugating the Hindus.
7. We manipulate their countries with our foreign policy.
8. We are hypocrites.

The last two are legitimate beefs. If you read Hitler's speeches, he too had a couple of legitimate beefs, for example, the needlessly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. That doesn't change the fact that he and his ideology were evil.

Moderate Muslims have legitimate greivances against us. We've been screwing them over for a long time. But they're among the ones we're trying to protect here, though some might argue our strategy in doing so is misguided.

But the terrorists don't hate us because of our past wrongs. They hate us because we are not Muslims, and we're in their way. If lefties wish to continue to find common cause with them, then the best thing they can do to follow the terrorists' wishes is either to commit suicide or to convert to Islam.

[Nbadan]

But the terrorists don't hate us because of our past wrongs. They hate us because we are not Muslims, and we're in their way. If lefties wish to continue to find common cause with them, then the best thing they can do to follow the terrorists' wishes is either to commit suicide or to convert to Islam.

Insurgencies don't last long without popular support. It's not so much the radicals wacked-out justification for hating the West that we need to worry about as much as the opinions of average moderates who financially and strategically supporting these wackos. Is it too much to expect average people in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Lebanon to want to be free from their own form of oppression?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Human Rights? What Gitmo again? Fuck that spin.. you don't know shit about what troops have been thru with Japan do you?

Our lack of respect for human rights.. .WHAT KIND OF FUCKING brainwash BS is that?
USA is the worlds defender and protector of human rights.
... nobody asked the US to "liberate" Iraq! nobody asked the US to act as the "protector and defender"! You should consider adding "self-proclaimed" and "not welcomed". I seriously don't get the US NECESITY to meddle in everyone's business, other than maybe its all for self-benefit, which I don't blame by the way, every country does what is best for itself. Just don't try and disguise it as a "righteous crusade to save the world of tyranny and opression", 'cause that's just plain BULLSHIT!! Bush Jr. is not Roosebelt! and Hussein is not Hitler.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The rights that we take advantage of in the US do not exist in parts of the world, yet we still have to deal with the rest of the world. Sticking our head in the sand is not really an option anymore based on how much smaller the world has become.

Not taking down Saddam after the Gulf War could be construed by some as a tacit approval of his regime, and a confirmation to terrorists believing that the west could be exploited further by terror because they were unwilling to pay the ultimate price. Granted, there were a lot of other factors involved, but there are also a lot of other factors in dealing with the Saud family & other Middle East nations.
jesus! so invasion is the only solution left in your mind?? The US has the right to protect itself, that much I can understand, but to invade a country that didn't pose a direct threat to the national security of the US with the pretext that they ONCE were building chemical weapons, so we must stop them from trying again? LOL that's just laughable! I know I really oversimplified the matter, but lets face it, Bush found no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq that would justify an invasion. I mean where does it stop? Will you invade every nation that could perhaps in some small chance harbor a terrorist cell? That's not an option people!

[Clandestino]

the u.s. has been the world's policemen forever... you should be fucking used to it by now... when we don't act, we are chastised, when we do act, we are shit on too... so, we really don't give too much of a fuck.. the u.s. picks and chooses their intervention according to what is best for the u.s. and no one else... imagine that... a country doing what is best for it's people!

and yes, any country that harbors terrorists will be invaded... ask the taliban, they didn't think the u.s. would invade...

[SWC Bonfire]

the u.s. picks and chooses their intervention according to what is best for the u.s. and no one else... imagine that... a country doing what is best for it's people!


I don't know if that is entirely true... generally it is not an issue, since a majority of the western world generally agrees somewhat with what is done, if not the way it was done. American foriegn policy definately takes into account the effects that it will have to friendly nations in the world, but at the end of the day we have to look out for #1.

[hendrix]

the u.s. has been the world's policemen forever... you should be fucking used to it by now...

About WW2, USA didnt intervene early. They wanted the URSS to fight alone in the east (so both side weakened... who cares about lives) and in the meantime allowed the west invasion and the attacks on London.
US intervened out of self-interest, and because there wasn't much left to do. Read history books.

[hendrix]

Better yet... read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2

[MannyIsGod]

the u.s. has been the world's policemen forever... you should be fucking used to it by now... when we don't act, we are chastised, when we do act, we are shit on too... so, we really don't give too much of a fuck.. the u.s. picks and chooses their intervention according to what is best for the u.s. and no one else... imagine that... a country doing what is best for it's people!

The United States get blasted because of the bullshit it's leader spew. It takes action when it has something at stake and always wants to paint itself and the white knight riding in on a noble fucking steed.

The problem is that many times it has done what is best for it and used people and then thrown them aside regardless of the consequences.

The label world's policeman doesn't fit. You said it yourself, we do what is right for us without regard to other countries. So, how many policemen do you know that do that?



and yes, any country that harbors terrorists will be invaded... ask the taliban, they didn't think the u.s. would invade...
Let me know when we're invading Suadi Arabia so that I can set my VCR.

[SWC Bonfire]

About WW2, USA didnt intervene early. They wanted the URSS to fight alone in the east (so both side weakened... who cares about lives) and in the meantime allowed the west invasion and the attacks on London.
US intervened out of self-interest, and because there wasn't much left to do. Read history books.

:lol

Just come in and mop up the Nazis and the empire of Japan - "Just get them on our way out". :lol The main reason we did not get involved in WWII is the main reason that we hear a lot of bitching about the war right now - Pacifists would have had FDR's head on a stick. And their were many more Pacifists back then than there are now. It took a surprize attack on US soil to commit us to war, and then we went where it took to get the job done. And we didn't do a full-on frontal assault of Germany until 3 1/2 years later.

What did Argentina do in WWII? Were they involved in the fighting in Spain preceding WWII? (Those are sincere questions, don't get pissed off.)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The United States get blasted because of the bullshit it's leader spew. It takes action when it has something at stake and always wants to paint itself and the white knight riding in on a noble fucking steed.

The problem is that many times it has done what is best for it and used people and then thrown them aside regardless of the consequences.

The label world's policeman doesn't fit. You said it yourself, we do what is right for us without regard to other countries. So, how many policemen do you know that do that?


Let me know when we're invading Suadi Arabia so that I can set my VCR.
:lmao http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies2/smitu.bmp

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lol

Just come in and mop up the Nazis and the empire of Japan - "Just get them on our way out". :lol The main reason we did not get involved in WWII is the main reason that we hear a lot of bitching about the war right now - Pacifists would have had FDR's head on a stick. And their were many more Pacifists back then than there are now. It took a surprize attack on US soil to commit us to war, and then we went where it took to get the job done. And we didn't do a full-on frontal assault of Germany until 3 1/2 years later.

What did Argentina do in WWII? Were they involved in the fighting in Spain preceding WWII? (Those are sincere questions, don't get pissed off.)
I've got almost nothing against how the US handled World War II. Americans didn't have a legitimate reason to get involved before Pearl Harbor (but chances are it would have entered the war regardless). But World War II has nothing to do with this war. You can't compare the circumstances, the players, the battles, or anything for that matter.

[The Ressurrected One]

I've got almost nothing against how the US handled World War II. Americans didn't have a legitimate reason to get involved before Pearl Harbor (but chances are it would have entered the war regardless). But World War II has nothing to do with this war. You can't compare the circumstances, the players, the battles, or anything for that matter.
I'm guessing you have no idea what a totalitarian Western Europe, under Hitler or Stalin -- Probably Hitler, would have meant for the United States.

Similarly, you have no idea what a Islamo-fascist Europe will mean.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm guessing you have no idea what a totalitarian Western Europe, under Hitler or Stalin -- Probably Hitler, would have meant for the United States.

Similarly, you have no idea what a Islamo-fascist Europe will mean.
Right, just like people had no idea what the spread of communism would mean for the US? The spread of communism to places like... lets say VIETNAM!? So basically what you're telling me is that this war is preventing the spread of Islamo-fascist ideals in the hope of preventing a hypothetical future overrun of American ideals of rights and liberties. In other words, we're back to the 1950s?

[SWC Bonfire]

If the US didn't take a stance on Communism worldwide and basically pester the USSR to death, do you think some of our Eastern European posters would be posting on this website today?

[MannyIsGod]

If the US didn't take a stance on Communism worldwide and basically pester the USSR to death, do you think some of our Eastern European posters would be posting on this website today?
Are you saying they would have been incapable of self liberation?

[SWC Bonfire]

Are you saying they would have been incapable of self liberation?

Who knows? Some of the French fought like a motherfucker in WWII and I doubt that they ever would have beaten the Nazis without a little help from somewhere.

The Polish got the shit kicked out of them when they didn't tote the communist line, and it took them 50 years to get out from under the Nazis/Soviets.

Are you going to try to pull some sort of gotcha! on me or something, like the theory of Islamic countries moderating on their own? Who knows?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If the US didn't take a stance on Communism worldwide and basically pester the USSR to death, do you think some of our Eastern European posters would be posting on this website today?
Indeed, but what does that have to do with defending your country? Look all I'm saying is don't try to convince people you're defending yourselves, when in reality you're defending your interests and that is not always a righteous thing!

[SWC Bonfire]

Look all I'm saying is don't try to convince people you're defending yourselves, when in reality you're defending your interests and that is not always a righteous thing!

I'm not trying to be righteous. Myself and my interests are pretty damn closely related, as probably are yours!:lol

FYI, you have exceptional grammar for someone from Argentina/a non-English speaking nation, Manumania... if that's your REAL NAME! :lol (I know you've been around a long time).

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm not trying to be righteous. Myself and my interests are pretty damn closely related, as probably are yours!:lol

FYI, you have exceptional grammar for someone from Argentina/a non-English speaking nation, Manumania... if that's your REAL NAME! :lol (I know you've been around a long time).http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif I didn't mean you specifically, I meant the US as a whole. To answer your question, I was born in Italy to Argentinean parents, and lived all over the place, including the US. I've gone to American schools all of my life though. To give you an idea, I've lived in Italy, France, England, Lybia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, USA. My real name is Eric

[MannyIsGod]

Who knows? Some of the French fought like a motherfucker in WWII and I doubt that they ever would have beaten the Nazis without a little help from somewhere.

The Polish got the shit kicked out of them when they didn't tote the communist line, and it took them 50 years to get out from under the Nazis/Soviets.

Are you going to try to pull some sort of gotcha! on me or something, like the theory of Islamic countries moderating on their own? Who knows?
I'm saying that there are other methods and freedom would exsist regardless of what America does. People want freedom and gravitate torwards it, it's not a unique American invention which is contrary to the attitude in this country.

I'm a firm believer that your nations attitude and how it is displayed through forgien policy shine through and have a big impact on your world affairs. I think that is one reason America has a lot of trouble at times. As much as people here love to compain about supposed French arrogance, they never see themselves filling that role pretty fucking well.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

What did Argentina do in WWII? Were they involved in the fighting in Spain preceding WWII? (Those are sincere questions, don't get pissed off.)

Argentina had a "moderate" goverment at the time, but in which many top members were secretly sympathetic to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. The country had big economical connections with the UK, but also a huge amount of Italian and Spanish immigrants (both for and against the fascist goverments in their homeland). Only after the war we had a massive amount of immigrants from Eastern Europe (my grandad came from Poland in 1948), but before the war the Jewish here were a very small minority. So the point is back then, there were pro (both for the Allies and the Axis) and against war positions. There were big political tensions in the country, and had the goverment declared for one side or another early in the war, it wouldn't have counted with support or it would have caused riots or fightings between both sides.

As the war developed, it proved that the best for the nation's economy was a neutral position (an error that affected our economy and alliences after the war). Also, we didn't have a huge or modern army (basically, we never did in our 195 years of history; our main victories were small scale battles), so declaring war against either side would have mean losing the country to a foreign power. We only declared war in 1945, when it was obvious that Germany was going to lose.

But that was pretty much the stance of the whole region, the only country that joined the Allies was Brazil, in 1942, the rest of South America remained neutral or joined the war very late.

As for the Spanish question, Argentina didn't take part in the Spanish Civil War (again, there were both pro and against positions), but the country did receive a lot of the refugees who fled from Franco (my other grandfather came here in 1938 from the Basque country).

From Wikipedia:

Roberto Ortiz was elected president in 1936, followed by Ramón Castillo. Argentina was officially neutral during most of the Second World War; much of the public sympathized with the Allied side, however the military governments that ruled between the years 1943-1946 favoured the Axis Powers, although towards the end of the war Argentina entered on the Allied side.

[Duff McCartney]

If the US didn't take a stance on Communism worldwide and basically pester the USSR to death, do you think some of our Eastern European posters would be posting on this website today?

I don't think there's anyway Communism would have lasted this long regardless if the US did anything. Communism is in itself a flawed concept. The natural greed of people is what makes communism collapse.

[whottt]

I think he was refering to our support for people like the Shah in Iran,

Link?



the royal families in Saudia Arabia

Link?



and Kuwait,

Link?



and Israeli violations of human rights.


Link?

[MannyIsGod]

Go under my name and read through my posts. I've provided a lot of information on that before. Shit, for the last one look no further than the annual State Dept report on Human rights violations. Israel is a annual member.

[whottt]

Our addiction to cheap oil and our inability/unwillingness to do much about it.

Who do we get cheap oil from? And what countries don't?



Using the Middle East as pawns in the Cold War.

Which middle eastern countries did we use as pawns in the cold war?



Our lack of respect for human rights for non-Americans.

Link?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Unreal

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Which middle eastern countries did we use as pawns in the cold war? \

Are you kidding? its a well known fact that the US trained and armed Iraqui soldiers to pester the Russians during the Cold War

[whottt]

Go under my name and read through my posts. I've provided a lot of information on that before.

That's funny because we had nothing to do with the Shah or his father coming to power...we put political pressure on him for Democratic reform, he was pro-western leader that was in favor of that reform until the Islamists started trying to over throw him...

As for when he was deposed...

It was this man who gave him shelter:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/mmoore2.jpg

The fellow I am talking about is of course the man sitting to the left of the woman sitting to the left of Michael Moore at the Democratic National Convention.





Shit, for the last one look no further than the annual State Dept report on Human rights violations. Israel is a annual member.

And we support their violations?

Question...who is responsible for the modern incarnation of Israel?

[whottt]

\

Are you kidding? its a well known fact that the US trained and armed Iraqui soldiers to pester the Russians during the Cold War


Link?

[whottt]

That's what I thought...not a link...just standard liberal rhetoric that is in no way back up by facts.

The best one of course is the "cheap oil" oil being a globally traded commodity with regulated prices and all...it might get cheaper for us...it will get cheaper for everyone, including the people that live in Arab countries...

If we truly wanted subsidized oil we would have been lining up to the best cheap oil deal in recent memory...known as the OFF program...that was the subsidized oil...that was the oil being sold at discount prices off the world market. And it was France, Germany and Russia that were getting most of it...you know...the same guys that were against taking any action against Saddam even if he did have WMD.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

That's what I thought...not a link...just standard liberal rhetoric that is in no way back up by facts.

The best one of course is the "cheap oil" oil being a globally traded commodity with regulated prices and all...it might get cheaper for us...it will get cheaper for everyone, including the people that live in Arab countries...

If we truly wanted subsidized oil we would have been lining up to the best cheap oil deal in recent memory...known as the OFF program...that was the subsidized oil...that was the oil being sold at discount prices off the world market. And it was France, Germany and Russia that were getting most of it...you know...the same guys that were against taking any action against Saddam even if he did have WMD.
Whottt, I may have no link, but I guarantee you what I'm saying has been proved. Now, I don't have to convince you of anything, you believe what you want.

P.S. I will be looking for a link about this, I'm sure its out there

[JoeChalupa]

Wasn't the all powerful Reagan who gave Saddam his weapons?


link? link? link?

[SWC Bonfire]

Wasn't the all powerful Reagan who gave Saddam his weapons?


link? link? link?

Yes, and Carter & Ford gave F-14's to the Shah of Iran. Moral of the story: you can't trust the governments of middle eastern nations, because in 10 years it could be someone else.

[whottt]

Wasn't the all powerful Reagan who gave Saddam his weapons?


What weapons?

And why did we give him the weapons we are alleged to have given him?

[Bandit2981]

That's what I thought...not a link...just standard liberal rhetoric that is in no way back up by facts.
Your ignorance of history is liberal rhetoric? Wheres the link to your brain?

[whottt]

No need to throw insults dicksucker...it just makes you look bad.

Just admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you are just repeating shit you hear other people say.

Pathetic.

[Bandit2981]

Wow, someone must have started their period today. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, it's pretty clear that you are the one who has no grasp of American (or any) history. Go grab a book or something, it might do you some good.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

What weapons?

And why did we give him the weapons we are alleged to have given him?

Is this proof enough enough?

http://www.bartcop.com/rummy-saddam.jpg

[whottt]

Wow, someone must have started their period today. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, it's pretty clear that you are the one who has no grasp of American (or any) history. Go grab a book or something, it might do you some good.

Yeah that's why not a single one of you called out has been able to even come close to backing up what you have said...

Why don't you tell me which books I should read to get the information I am seeking?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Yeah that's why not a single one of you called out has been able to even come close to backing up what you have said...

Why don't you tell me which books I should read to get the information I am seeking?

Neither have any of you neocandanistas. Not ONE!!
NO TIES to 9/11. NONE! NO WMD!! NONE!!

Look in the mirror before you talking stupid like Dubya.

Pathetic.

[whottt]

Is this proof enough enough?

http://www.bartcop.com/rummy-saddam.jpg


Actually tool, it isn't...

Do you know when that photo was taken and what Rumsfield's occupation was at that time and why he was sent there?

[whottt]

Neither have any of you neocandanistas. Not ONE!!
NO TIES to 9/11.

What do yo mean no ties to 9/11?

What is supposed to be tied to 9/11

Stop babbling like an idiot and make a semi coherent accusation.



NONE! NO WMD!! NONE!!

Ooops.

Plenty of people thought Saddam had WMD...

Had he not kicked the UN weapons inspectors out he might not have gotten his ass kicked.

Then he again...since he had been in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement since 1993...he still might have.









Look in the mirror before you talking stupid like Dubya.

Pathetic.

You type well for a guy with terrorist dick down his throat and up his ass...

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Actually tool, it isn't...

Do you know when that photo was taken and what Rumsfield's occupation was at that time and why he was sent there?

The picture: Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

So see Doofus..your great one Reagan began this shit.

Rummy laughing it up with Saddam (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

I know Wimbleton is over but you just got SERVED!!!

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You type well for a guy with terrorist dick down his throat and up his ass...

There goes that conservative homophobia again...and you type well for a guy with his lips on Dubya's sac!

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah that's why not a single one of you called out has been able to even come close to backing up what you have said...

Why don't you tell me which books I should read to get the information I am seeking?
Alright, Whottt. Here you go. I would have responded sooner, but I've been working.

In regards to the Shah:



For several decades the United States had been the primary backer of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi), the Shah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_of_Iran). In 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953), emerging democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) led to the election of reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist) Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh); under Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax), the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA) helped the Shah and conservative elements in Iran remove Mossadegh in what was widely seen as a coup d'etat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27etat). Eight U.S. presidents provided the shah with military and economic aid in exchange for a continuous oil supply and a strategic presence in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East). Those opposed to the Shah, because he did not grant them freedoms and reforms he promised in the early 1960s, greatly resented this behaviour by the Americans. The Shah and cronies enriched themselves, living an opulent Western (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western) lifestyle, which particularly rankled religious conservatives. The social and religious opposition combined to topple the Shah's regime in the Iranian revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution), and the Shah fled the country in January (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January) 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

I know Wikipedia isn't a great source, but it's one on the net with basic information. If you want to address each of those points and their validity, go right ahead.

In regards to the support of Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families you don't really need a link do you?

And as for our Israel and their human rights violations:



In June, the Physicians for Human Rights in Israel (PHR) petitioned the Supreme Court to end what it termed the Israel Prison System's (IPS) "systematic abuse of prisoners" in the Sharon Prison. In July, the court decided to close the case after prisoner complaints ended with the appointment of a new prison warden. At year's end, PHR continued to investigate the complaints and had received relevant files from the police.

that and a lot more at:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

[whottt]

The picture: Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

So see Doofus..your great one Reagan began this shit.

Rummy laughing it up with Saddam (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

I know Wimbleton is over but you just got SERVED!!!



I applaud you providing a link...

Now why don't you tell me when Iraq's first use of chemical/biological weapons against Iran occurred?

And then explain to me how that picture constitutes proof.

The only thing it proves to me is that Reagan knew the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism even back then(IE it's worse than Saddam)...if not what Saddam was going to turn into.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and don't reply back with "Liberal presidents did it" because I don't care if they were communist presidents. My point is that things America has done and the way they are percieved in that point of the world have a lot to do with what is going on today.

[Duff McCartney]

Isn't it common knowledge that the U.S. provided weapons and aid to Afghanistan when they were being invaded by Russia?

[whottt]

Alright, Whottt. Here you go. I would have responded sooner, but I've been working.

In regards to the Shah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis



For several decades the United States had been the primary backer of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah. In 1953, emerging democracy led to the election of reformist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh; under Operation Ajax, the CIA helped the Shah and conservative elements in Iran remove Mossadegh in what was widely seen as a coup d'etat. Eight U.S. presidents provided the shah with military and economic aid in exchange for a continuous oil supply and a strategic presence in the Middle East. Those opposed to the Shah, because he did not grant them freedoms and reforms he promised in the early 1960s, greatly resented this behaviour by the Americans. The Shah and cronies enriched themselves, living an opulent Western lifestyle, which particularly rankled religious conservatives. The social and religious opposition combined to topple the Shah's regime in the Iranian revolution, and the Shah fled the country in January 1979.
.


I assume this is talking about at the point of the Islamic revolution and the Shah's ouster, because we most certainly had not been his primary backer for several decades by 1953.

This is a very superficial analysis of what took place.

#1. Ajax was for all intents and purposes a failure and it was the Iranians themselves that deposed Mossadegh.

#2. If the Shah was intent on being a dictator then how in the hell was Iran an emerging democracy with a reformist PM in 1953? Seeing as how he had been the monarch of that country for a decade at that point.

#3. The British were the true architects and instigators of subversive activity in IRan.

#4. The Ayatollas and Mossadegh are not the same, at all.

#5. 5What turned the Shah into a dictator was the continual attempts to overthrow and assasinate him when he was trying to establish a powerful constitutional democracy.

But mainly...and this is my ultimate point here...

We had nothing to do with the Shah coming into power. We had nothing to do with the Saudi Family coming into power.

This concept of propping up puppet monarchs who stay in power via tyranny is not of America's doing or Americas creation and I get sick of hearing it attributed to us...

That is the single biggest misconception that there is.

Appointing puppet monarchs who stay in power via tyranny is and always has been the European concept of dealing with those "savages"...and it still is to this day.

Are we guilty of subversive fucking around in the middle east? Of course...along with every other country in the World.

But the intent is not now, nor has it ever been, to enslave the middle easterners under the iron heel of a dictator, because we somehow have a preference for dictatorial and terrorist regimes and care nothing for the individuals within those countries...it's always been to have position against external threats to those countries.


The worst thing you can accuse us of is keeping the pro western ones in power, WHILE pressuring them for Democratic Reform, and maybe not pressuring them hard enough.

A failure to trade one dictator out for another is not = to us being the cause of all the evils in the World and all the problems in the middle East.

The problems we face now in the middle east are all the responsibility of Europe and the UN.


This is the reality.

Here is a more deatiled account of the US history in Iran...it's not near as cut and dried or malicious as it is portrayed to be.


Link:
Oil Nationalization (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php)


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php


And BTW...Taking out Saddam was very similar to taking out the Shah...why is everyone bitching now?




In regards to the support of Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families you don't really need a link do you?

Actually I do...I need a link to show that we are the only people that support them...

Sure we liberated Kuwait...and so did Iran and Saudi Arabia...shit if that's what they are pissed off about they ought to live Israel since Israel was about the only country that didn't participate in the liberation of Kuwait.

As for Oil imports? We import more Oil from fucking England than we do Kuwait.

Europe and Japan are the countries most dependent on mideast Oil...we do have a stake in protecting the oil supply there...not just for our economy, for the entire worlds economy.

As for Kuwait and Saudi..

These countries are fucking sand...if people don't by Oil from them you will see a humanitarian disaster greater than what is going on in Africa...they are totally dependent on Oil sales...and in the case of Saudi it's still not enough to support their backwards ass culture.

The two sources of income Saudi Arabia has are Oil Sales and investment in our economy...

The Golden Era of Saudi civilization was discovered and paid for by Americans...it's not our fault that the idiots have a backwards ass culture still rooted in the 17th century and don't know how to manage their population and finances...


Secondly...our military was there to defend Saudi Arabia from Saddam...not Islamic Fundamentalists...Saddam wasn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, he was a fucking Socialist.

Saddam's gone from Saudi and so are we...wasn't that one of the things Usama was bitching about? Weren't the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people something he was bitching about? Well those two conditions no longer exist.



And as for our Israel and their human rights violations:


that and a lot more at:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

I never denied Israel has human rights violations...I just denied that we support them doing that...we don't support any countries human rights violations, nor do we create them...it just so happens that 90% of the countries outside of the US and Europe have a problem with them...

Are we supposed to go overthrow every backwards ass country and install a puppet regime?

I thought that's why we are hated in the first place.

The funniest thing is everyone one acting like we should declare war on the Saudis...

These fuckers were charter members of the UN, they were in it before we were and by and unlike 99% of the other Arab Countries they don't have a totally warlike history in modern times.

[whottt]

Isn't it common knowledge that the U.S. provided weapons and aid to Afghanistan when they were being invaded by Russia?

Yeah? And how exactly does helping the muslims fend off an invader count as a justification for terrorist dickheadedness?

[whottt]

Oh, and don't reply back with "Liberal presidents did it"

A Democratic President nuked Japan.
A Democratic President created the CIA.
A Democratic President was in office at the time project AJax was thought up...
A Democratic President let the Fudamentalists take Iran.

You wanted us to not interfere in the internal politics of country...I give you Iran....and 40% of it's population living below the poverty level.

And Jimmy Fucking Carter was the straw that broke the camels fucking back with Iran.

It was when we allowed the Shah refuge here that they went fucking insane.


because I don't care if they were communist presidents. My point is that things America has done and the way they are percieved in that point of the world have a lot to do with what is going on today.

Yeah? And Bush and the "neocons aren't the cause of it...

I agree with you strongly on one point...it is all about perception...and the perception they have of us is a false one...

When they talk of Imperialism and Colonialism...and they stick Americas name on it...guess what? We never did it...Europe did...we tried to stay out of it in the first two world wars and they drug us fucking into it...

This is why when I hear liberals saying we need to follow the lead of Europe on this...I say ya'll are fucking crazy...they created this situation. Ya'll are fucking suicidal.

When we got to war and win? The country ends up doing pretty fucking good...they are not are colonies or puppets(unless puppets can tell their masters to fuck off like France and Germany just told us to do).

Like it or not...when they say West...the actions they attribute to us are those of the Europeans, and what the Europeans did to them....We are not their to colonize their land and install puppet regimes, we may have supported ones that were already in place...but we did not create them, nor do we at the end of a war...and if the Elections in Iraq don't prove that I don't know what will.

This time we are doing it our way...and the only way we ease this shit is to alleviate the problems created by the European concept of the middle East...Iraq was step 1 and hopefully it will be the last time we have to use military force to implement the change.

We split the muslims here...the Shias are more progressive and I am certain they see what we are doing...it's not us murdering and targeting their children..it's us that freed their majority from a tyrant and are giving them the opportunity for true self government for the first time perhaps ever.

[MannyIsGod]

A Democratic President nuked Japan.
A Democratic President created the CIA.
A Democratic President was in office at the time project AJax was thought up...
A Democratic President let the Fudamentalists take Iran.

You wanted us to not interfere in the internal politics of country...I give you Iran....and 40% of it's population living below the poverty level.

And Jimmy Fucking Carter was the straw that broke the camels fucking back with Iran.

It was when we allowed the Shah refuge here that they went fucking insane.


You don't understand that I am not blaming Republican policies for what got us here I am blaming AMERICAN actions. I'm not interested in turning this into a partisan debate because as far as I'm concerned they are both full of shit.




Yeah? And Bush and the "neocons aren't the cause of it...

I agree with you strongly on one point...it is all about perception...and the perception they have of us is a false one...

When they talk of Imperialism and Colonialism...and they stick Americas name on it...guess what? We never did it...Europe did...we tried to stay out of it in the first two world wars and they drug us fucking into it...

This is why when I hear liberals saying we need to follow the lead of Europe on this...I say ya'll are fucking crazy...they created this situation. Ya'll are fucking suicidal.

:lmao Y'all? When have you ever seen me say we should do it the European way? Godamn, can you stick to the conversation we are having and not lump me into a group I don't belong to?



When we got to war and win? The country ends up doing pretty fucking good...they are not are colonies or puppets(unless puppets can tell their masters to fuck off like France and Germany just told us to do).

Like it or not...when they say West...the actions they attribute to us are those of the Europeans, and what the Europeans did to them....We are not their to colonize their land and install puppet regimes, we may have supported ones that were already in place...but we did not create them, nor do we at the end of a war...and if the Elections in Iraq don't prove that I don't know what will.

This time we are doing it our way...and the only way we ease this shit is to alleviate the problems created by the European concept of the middle East...Iraq was step 1 and hopefully it will be the last time we have to use military force to implement the change.

We split the muslims here...the Shias are more progressive and I am certain they see what we are doing...it's not us murdering and targeting their children..it's us that freed their majority from a tyrant and are giving them the opportunity for true self government for the first time perhaps ever.

You never addressed a damn thing about a few things that we've done that happend in the past 50 years that have to do with the current feelings.

1. Support of Israel when Israel does some shitty things.
2. Support of Iraq in the 80s
3. Letting Afghanistan become what it did in the 80s

[The Ressurrected One]

Well, you can't change the past, Manny. How 'bout quitting all the historical hysteria and tell us all how we put the toothpaste back in the tube without killing all the Islamo-fascist pricks.

[whottt]

1. Support of Israel when Israel does some shitty things.
Who don't we support? We support fucking Arab countries that do shitty things to...In fact...I'd say every country that needs our support does shitty things...I think the two go hand in hand actually...if they weren't a fucked up country they wouldn't need our support.



2. Support of Iraq in the 80s
Everyone supported him...we were giving a new regime a chance to join the world community...the fact that he hated Iran was a bonus...since they hated us. And once he revealed his true intentions we stopped supporting him.

Some of the Iraquis supported him as well...

Just like many Iranians supported the shah and mourn the day he lost power...

Why don't they kill each other over that...oh wait...they are.



3. Letting Afghanistan become what it did in the 80s

Um...we helped in Afghanistan and tried to let them rebuild themselves...because we didn't want to hear a bunch of liberals complaining about us setting up a puppet regime in Afghanistan...

We helped the Afghanis fend of a Soviet Invasion...I fail to see what we did wrong there...

We didn't want to be too supportive of then...because you know, they had a shitty record on human rights ;)

The bottom line is that pennyanny dictators and Mullahs who still wipe their asses with sand, are not capable of running these countries with large populations and nothing but sand to fucking farm...and this is easily proved by looking at the quality of life in every one of those large countries...these fuckers have no concept of a modern economic model and their people will continue to suffer until they modernize their cultures...What makes it our problem is that they blame us for their problems and their backwards leadership...and they envy our success...we'll I am not going to go back to wiping my ass with sand just because they can't evolve...I'll just say fuckem before that happens. Nature weeds out failing organisms and cultures....it's only by the grace of our humanity that these people still exist with the quality of life that they do.



It's the 21st century...what worked 600 years ago will not work in this world...especially when you have a population of 30 million people. One idiot having ultimate power will not work.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, you keep giving me excuses for why we did what we did. That doesn't change the fact that what we did has an effect TODAY with those actions.

Anyhow, my last post in this thread will be summed up by Ty Fairman"



But former FBI agent, Ty Fairman, who has over 20 years experience with the world's most renowned terrorists has a different point of view. Mr. Fairman's investigative analysis has led to the capture of Abu Zubayda, second in command to Osama bin Laden, as well as to the indictment of the kidnappers of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and even to those involved in the Egypt Air 990 plane crash.

One of his lectures at the 15th World Conference on Disaster Management was "Conscious Assimilation: Understanding the Terrorist Mind."

"The terrorist mindset is that the United States is trying to destroy Islam and implement capitalism and religious freedoms in their society in order to control their resources," says Mr. Fairman, referring to Osama Bin Laden's 1996 Al-Qaeda 12-page manifesto.

"Most Americans believe that America is going out to do good, to bring civilization and democracy to other parts of the world," says Mr. Fairman. "But the terrorist mindset is: 'if you really want to help, then help.' But if you do it, you are doing it to gain economic power, to gain access to our oil resources, to get a stronghold in our area," says Mr. Fairman.

Mr. Fairman admits the process does involve the United States having access to a country's resources after a war but that it comes coupled with helping that country develop its economic and social structure. "The process does involve getting a percentage of their gross domestic product," says Mr. Fairman. "It's not quid pro quo."

"They [terrorists] want their resources to come back to their countries. They want to get a percentage of their gross domestic product the way Kuwait does.

I don't condone terrorist actions but some of their motivations do carry some weight," says Mr. Fairman. "Why else would someone want to kill himself? So we have to pay attention. We have to stop just saying that [terrorists] are bad and we have to see what is really going on."

[Duff McCartney]

Yeah? And how exactly does helping the muslims fend off an invader count as a justification for terrorist dickheadedness?

Whottt are you really this stupid? I didn't say anything about justification for them being terrorist. But weren't you bitching about people "claiming" we supported the Middle East before and not now?

[whottt]

Whottt are you really this stupid? I didn't say anything about justification for them being terrorist. But weren't you bitching about people "claiming" we supported the Middle East before and not now?


Afghanistan is not in the middle east.

[Duff McCartney]

It's the 21st century...what worked 600 years ago will not work in this world...especially when you have a population of 30 million people. One idiot having ultimate power will not work.

Whottt...that can apply to the U.S. as well. When you have religious idiots wanting the country to be the way it was in the 18th century.

[whottt]

Dude, you keep giving me excuses for why we did what we did. That doesn't change the fact that what we did has an effect TODAY with those actions.




Anyhow, my last post in this thread will be summed up by Ty Fairman"


"The terrorist mindset is that the United States is trying to destroy Islam and implement capitalism and religious freedoms in their society in order to control their resources," says Mr. Fairman, referring to Osama Bin Laden's 1996 Al-Qaeda 12-page manifesto.

He's right about capitalism and religious freedoms in their society...

Because that's the only they will survive in this world with the resouces and diverse populations they have.

Damn straight that's what we are trying to do and they're going to do it whether they like it or not...because Islamic nations produce individuals that blow up buildings and consider children military targets.


He's wrong about destroying Islam...I mean how can we simulataneously be striving for religious freedom while at the same time trying to destroy it.




"Most Americans believe that America is going out to do good, to bring civilization and democracy to other parts of the world," says Mr. Fairman. "But the terrorist mindset is: 'if you really want to help, then help.' But if you do it, you are doing it to gain economic power, to gain access to our oil resources, to get a stronghold in our area," says Mr. Fairman.

And what makes them idiots is the failure to realize we already have a stronghold in their area. What we are doing now is trying to take away the miserable living conditions and lack of humanity that will get one our cities nuked.


Mr. Fairman admits the process does involve the United States having access to a country's resources after a war but that it comes coupled with helping that country develop its economic and social structure. "The process does involve getting a percentage of their gross domestic product," says Mr. Fairman. "It's not quid pro quo."

They need to worry about the survival of their people and their own quality and not whether or not we are making money off of things...altruism costs money.


"They [terrorists] want their resources to come back to their countries. They want to get a percentage of their gross domestic product the way Kuwait does.

So basically they are the ones that want money and oil..so much for their religious righteousness..and they will do nothing with it except create more terrorists and point their anger at those that don't wipe their asses with sand.

[whottt]

Whottt...that can apply to the U.S. as well. When you have religious idiots wanting the country to be the way it was in the 18th century.

I agree.