If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Dargan wrote:
Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists? I'm sure you can provide an example? No? I didn't think so. The only thing the Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a crack down has begun. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
BUFDRVR wrote:
Mike Dargan wrote: Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists? I'm sure you can provide an example? Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. No? I didn't think so. If you don't think very well, try to not think too much. Cheers --mike The only thing the Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a crack down has begun. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot" wrote: Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work. While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say, "Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it right." Give Israel a good spanking when it needs it. Settling the occupied terrorities was really stupid. A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people some hope for a democratic future. Just how many do you plan to kill? 10, 20, 30 million? There are religious schools all over the Niddle east teaching children that america is the enemy. There are over a billion Muslims, If only 10% hold extemist views thats a 100 million. And before someone out in the peanu gallery calls me an anti-semite. I fully support the right of Israel to exist. I just wish Israel would be smarter about doing it. (Note the evolution of democracy in Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs and now seeks a return to progressivism.) The last Iranian election seemed to be a step backwards as candidates had to be "mullah approved" This doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest. We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the next election leaves office. But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic principles? Might have been a lot brighter picture if we could have worked better with the UN and our allies. I have a sneaking suspicion that their decision may not have been based on how they perceived the threat of Iraq under Sadaam but whether or not they wanted to do it with George "my way or the highway" Bush in charge. Roosevelt had people working on the occupation of Germany in 1943. These guys, who have planned this war since 1998 didn't start until Baghdad fell. Ultimately we aren't going to know until US troops leave. I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in November The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of Hiroshima didn't beget more violence, There is a good argument that it wasn't the A-bombs but the Soviets entry to the war that did the trick it toppled the regime and created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence, it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe. Apples and oranges. This war is nothing like WWII. Don't mistake my opposition to Bush for pacifism. I spent a few years on willy airplane patch in the comm unit (76-80). I fully support the war against Bin-laden and Al-queda. I think the war though in Iraq is a misguided side show that wasted resources like RC-135's and arab speaking green berets which could have been used better in Afghanistan and Pakistan. When your boot is on the enemies throat you don't let up. Bush did and now he needs to pay for it. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:3FRZc.107321$Fg5.31523@attbi_s53... BUFDRVR wrote: Mike Dargan wrote: Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists? I'm sure you can provide an example? Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. "This is where Unger's accusations are greeted with skepticism. For experts, connection does not prove corruption. Jonathan D. Tepperman, senior editor at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, argues that Unger's book "has done a really good job" showing "a lot of smoke but what he hasn't done is shown me there is any fire." Tepperman wrote a critical review of Unger's book in The New York Times Book Review. In an interview, Tepperman agreed with Unger that "these connections" (such as President Bush hosting Bandar at his Crawford ranch, an honor usually reserved for heads of state) do "look bad." But he adds "what I don't see is any evidence that the Bush family ever let their personal financial concerns dictate U.S. policy." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612852.shtml A book full of inuendo, and short of hard evidence. No? I didn't think so. If you don't think very well, try to not think too much. So what you are saying with all of that obtuse wording is that you don't think too much? Cheers --mike The only thing the Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a crack down has begun. Odd how you missed out on this more important bit of Bufdrvr's response. Brooks BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: (BUFDRVR) wrote in message ... Fred the Red Shirt wrote: Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad? When and when, respectively? Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness, then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of multiple gun shot wounds. It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal. Sounds like he died of lead poisoning. By definition, terrorists are extremely dangerous people. Perhaps Saddam decided that he had lived too long. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
... "BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current government otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con". The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance, to "con-men". This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness. As a Francophone you will appreciate the 'con' part of it in a different way as well. More appropriate still IMO John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been | Psalm 110 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 12th 04 09:40 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |