ComputerBB

There seems to be some confusion concerning the report put out by the 9/11 commission. The full report can be found here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I suggest you comfused Bush haters read it before you go reciting what you hear on your precious liberal news TV channels and internet sites.

Note that this report has been subject to slant and propaganda by the anti-Bush crowd.

As no doubt that post was aimed at me, I can tell you I have read that report front to back. As stated in Chapter 10.3 '"Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq', there was no evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9/11. I fail to see the point in your citing this document, especially when you offer no argument or evidence. As a 'Bush-hater', my primary argument is that President Bush sent our troops to fight and die in an unprovoked, unneccesary war. Give me evidence of Iraqi WMD's or Al Qaeda in Iraq and I will agree with you, but when no evidence exists that the nation our soldiers are dying in did anything to us I will never agree with this war or President Bush. Where is your evidence!

Not once did I say that Saddam helped Al Quaida with 9/11. There were provable ties between Saddam and Al Quaida, however. Saddam on multiple occasions harbored Al Quaida terrorists. Since you can't even figure out what's been said on these forums, I don't expect you can figure out what's going on with the war on terror.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who should have been removed in Desert Storm. He used chemical weapons on his people. His sons tortured and raped Iraqis at random. There are other equally brutal regimes in the world, so why did we choose Iraq? Iraq is in the center of the middle east. Our invasion of Iraq has been a warning for the other brutal regimes as well. Libya has quit their WMD program. So we invaded Iraq, removed Saddam and his regime, and ended a WMD program that would have provided terrorists with WMD's. Exactly what we went to Iraq to do, difference is that we ended Libya's program and not Iraq's (whose WMD program had ended previously). Iran and North Korea are now pressured to do the same. Was it the Iraq was that caused it? Maybe it didn't cause it but it sure wouldn't have happened without it.

North Korea is a country lead by a brutal dictator seeking WMD's, but China has the situation under control. Iran is as well, and we very well may go there after we're done with Iraq in a year or two.

Throughout America's many wars, we've learned that the price of freedom is the loss of life among young American men. The Iraq war has done good things for the world both in and out of Iraq, putting a stop to WMD programs which could have supplied WMD's to Al Quaida. It is far better for 1000 young men to die in Iraq in a year and a half than for 6 million in New York City in less than a second.

We need to fight an agressive war on terror (not a sensitive one as John Kerry suggests). If we worry over whether France and Germany support us or not, just remember that France has never won a war when the US doesn't do all the fighting and Germany ... Germany has no excuse to blame anyone for going to war. There are 30 countries in Iraq with us. We are not alone.

What you just wrote there was most likely one of the most racist, egotistical, right-wing, and militaristic posts I have ever seen.

You propose attacking nations at a madman's discretion without provocation, just to prove that we're crazy enough to do it anywhere? That's the most insane policy I've ever heard - that's worse than 'containment' back in the 1950's.

China does not have it under control. China is a brutal totalitarian regime that executes more people than every nation on Earth combined. China regularly executes it's own people for religious differences, newspaper editorials and petty theft.

The Iraq war has not stopped Al Qaeda from getting WMD's. Iraq never would have given Al Qaeda WMD's. All we did there was make America the target of global radicalism in a time when the highest priority should be placed on global unity and knowledge.

What I like to think we have learned, from America's many wars, is that war should only be fought as a last resort, when America is really and truly threatened. Another lesson we should have learned is that war cannot be fought on behalf of another people, they will not accept it and disaster will ensue.

That last paragraph is probably one of the most nationalist, ignorant things I have ever read in what should be an intelligent argument. The USA would not have won the War of Independence without France. And Germany fell victim to the same ignorance and militarism that I see growing in America everyday. Should Bush win (For the first time) again in November, this nation will have abandoned the democratic system in favor of government propaganda and militarism.

I have come to this realization over the past 2 years, reading accounts such as the 9/11 Commission and Against All Enemies, as well as accounts of the war from both sides of the spectrum and comparative historical accounts. Like the Germans under the Nazi government, the people of the United States have been lied to and they freely accept it. We can turn this whole thing around at the next election, presuming the neo-conservatives don't steal it again from the majority in this nation, and return America to the ideals it was founded upon. If you don't see that by now there is nothing left to say, you will have to pay the price yourself.

The US now is like Germany in the 1930's? I don't know where you're living, but in America we call that bull shit. Germany in the 1930's was a nation recovering from World War I. Hitler came to power because fascism offered economic recovery, and once he was in power, he preached German superiority and attempted to take over the world. The US is not trying to take over the world, but to rid the world of terrorists. If you feel there is a connection, there's a school for mentally challenged kids a few miles from where I live where you may want to consider enrolling.

Suvorov wrote:You propose attacking nations at a madman's discretion without provocation, just to prove that we're crazy enough to do it anywhere? That's the most insane policy I've ever heard - that's worse than 'containment' back in the 1950's.

If that's your best interpretation of what I said, again, see that suggestion about that school.

Suvorov wrote:China does not have it under control. China is a brutal totalitarian regime that executes more people than every nation on Earth combined. China regularly executes it's own people for religious differences, newspaper editorials and petty theft.

What does China being a brutal totalitarian regime have to do with it having North Korea under control?

Suvorov wrote:The Iraq war has not stopped Al Qaida from getting WMD's. Iraq never would have given Al Qaida WMD's. All we did there was make America the target of global radicalism in a time when the highest priority should be placed on global unity and knowledge.

According to the intelligence the CIA had before war, Saddam could have had WMD's. The war did frighten Libya into ending their WMD program, as I said already. If you, told that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, would not have invaded Iraq, you would have been trusting the word of a madman, and if you put national security in the hands of the word of a madman, your opinion is unfit to be stated.

Suvorov wrote:What I like to think we have learned, from America's many wars, is that war should only be fought as a last resort, when America is really and truly threatened. Another lesson we should have learned is that war cannot be fought on behalf of another people, they will not accept it and disaster will ensue.

This is worthy of O'Reilly's Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.

Suvorov wrote:That last paragraph is probably one of the most nationalist, ignorant things I have ever read in what should be an intelligent argument. The USA would not have won the War of Independence without France. And Germany fell victim to the same ignorance and militarism that I see growing in America everyday. Should Bush win (For the first time) again in November, this nation will have abandoned the democratic system in favor of government propaganda and militarism.

France reluctantly helped the US win the revolution because they had a fierce hate against England. The King of France who made the decision to help the US was overthrown a decade later by the French people.

Germany was a leading cause of WW I and the cause of WW II. They have no right to blame anyone for going to war. The propaganda that the American people get is left-wing propaganda from the media, not right wing propaganda from the government. Should Bush be reelected, it will be because the majority (or possibly just short of the majority) of the American people believe that he is the strong leader we need in this time in our history, as opposed to the flip flopping Senator from Massachusetts.

Suvorov wrote:I have come to this realization over the past 2 years, reading accounts such as the 9/11 Commission and Against All Enemies, as well as accounts of the war from both sides of the spectrum and comparative historical accounts. Like the Germans under the Nazi government, the people of the United States have been lied to and they freely accept it. We can turn this whole thing around at the next election, presuming the neo-conservatives don't steal it again from the majority in this nation, and return America to the ideals it was founded upon. If you don't see that by now there is nothing left to say, you will have to pay the price yourself.

That is your opinion, and I respect it, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Look the word "to lie" up in a dictionary. Bush did not lie to America because he did not intentionally mean to be incorrect about WMD's. The primary problem with your opinion is that it is based in false facts that you have accepted to be true.

I admire that you, unlike many Bush hating huts that I have encountered, have actually gone beyond what the liberal network TV channels would tell you about Bush. I'm under the impression that you have been misled by either your own irrational thinking or a personal hate for Bush.

And I am under the impression that you are misled by your trust of Bush and conservative news networks like Fox and MSNBC.

I believe that the rich and powerful purposefully over-ruled the majority vote of the people of America to place a foolish, ignorant, easily-led man in the place of president. Once that was easily accomplished, neo-conservatives, hawks and businessmen were placed in the highest positions of power. Men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld were placed into the administration to make the decisions for their corporate and conservative counterparts. Aided by some of the most brilliant speech writers and a large hand in many of the largest and most powerful news networks, the Bush administration went about making lies the truth and changing reality to 'reality'.

This is America's Reality:

First Al Qaeda might have WMD's. Anthrax spreads across the nation, presumably, now, by an American bio-chemist. Now Iraq has ties with Al Qaeda. Then Colin Powell brings anthrax to the UN, making his case for war with fuzzy pictures of buildings entrenched in the sand. Then Condoleeza Rice talks about how, 'the smoking gun (A reference to 9/11 investigations) could be a mushroom cloud. Now there are nukes in Iraq. WMD's. WMD's. Get your duct tape. Duck and cover. Look at the color. Green. No, wait, it's yellow! Jesus, where is that duct tape? My god it's going to orange! Iraq, says Bush. Iraq. Suddenly it's us against the world, the USA fighting terrorism abroad and our allies at home. The UN searches for Nukes in Iraq for months, director Has Blix says there are none. That isn't good enough, says Bush. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Says Rumsfeld. (That's a schizophrenic attitude, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's there!) You frog-eating pussies better get out of the way, Iraq is a big, wet WMD pussy and we are gunna fuck that shit up. So we go in, Shock and Awe, dropping 500+ pound bombs with surgical accuracy into Baghdad's streets. Smart Bombs, we say. They know what to do. Trust the smart bombs. Bang! Boom! I sure did love seeing those suckers go off, Kaplow! My god we watched it on the big screen, this was revenge. This was war. Take that, that's what you get for taking down those towers!

And then, it was over. But it wasn't. We realize, soon afterward, that that big soft pussy was a goddamn bear trap, and the WMD's were just plastic bait hung above it. Sure, Gaddafi gives his nuclear plans up, but he never had any to begin with. Lybia could barely keep it's soldiers supplied, how was it going to develop or use nukes? But North Korea has lots of money. North Korea pulls those monitoring cameras from their nuclear plants. With America's dick in a beartrap, how's it gonna fuck us? North Korea gets the bomb. Pakistan has the bomb. India has the bomb. Iran has the bomb. And suddenly the lies fall apart and we're not stuck in a bear trap, we're stuck in an oil field. An Oil Field being drilled by Halliburton, our troops being fed and clothed by Halliburton, and the line between government and corporation now shows itself as having been crossed, by a wide margin, for more than 3 years now. But we came here for the people, didn't we? Says Bush. The Iraqi people are free, would you have rather had them die? As though their lives were our responsibility. As though their country was some long-forgotten state.

This is what I see. A political, global circus of lies and deceit that not only lead our country closer not only to the wasp's nest we glimpsed on 9/11, but also to the tiger's den of nuclear weaponry. Suddenly nukes are everywhere but where we are. Our troops are beginning to pull back from the networks of defense they once inhabited. Places like the 38th Parallel, Germany and Saudi Arabia, once home to large contingents of US forces, are being dismantled by a government who is realizing the scope of the shit storm it has unleashed. Suddenly the world is looking far scarier than it did 3 years ago. Who will make it better?

Bush will, they say. President Bush campaigns like he is fixing the mistakes of some other president before him. Suddenly Cheney is a nice guy, a jokester. Suddenly a war hero, who was lied to like all of America, is being chastized and ridiculed becaused he changed his mind or because his wounds, taken at the height of the Vietnam war, aren't heroic or life-threatening ENOUGH.

Truly, I must applaud the mastermind behind the media control for the last 3 years, he must be the smartest man in America. To control public opinion like that, to be able to skew reality so well, must take incredible resources of mind and wallet.

That is our reality. Fear is a weapon used not by terrorists but by Bush. Truth is no longer important. And O'Reilly is a shit head.

Edit: I really like this post. I truly reflects how I, and many others, regard the events that have taken place over the last 3 years.

Suvorov wrote:I really like this post. I truly reflects how I, and many others, regard the events that have taken place over the last 3 years.

Aye, I'll agree with that. That is most certainly how you feel.

LoL

One quick thing about your paragraph suvourv it was Clinton who pratically gave India the nukes, i'm sure of it.

Sure these countries may have nukes, but your underestimating the power of our military and defense systems.

Clinton gave India nuclear weapons...? I just can't believe that. Show me some evidence.

The thing about nuclear weapons is that no matter how powerful one's army is it is at the mercy of those with the nukes. The only deterrent we have against nuclear attack is a startegy known as MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. It's defined as being able to, if an attack is launched against your country, completely destroy the nation that first attacked. This is what kept the Cold War from destroying the Earth.

Missile Shields are completely useless and expensive, not to mention Reagan's 'Star Wars'. There is no deterrent to ICBMs.

MDAA is just beginning to come on line, which is our missile defense systems, why wont they work? plus yes our military is at the mercy of hte bomb, but a bomb will never get into america right now unless it is a missle and once the defense systems are online it will be very hard for a missle to work. Plus how would a terrorist build a freaking ICBM i mean Clinton i heard sorta helped china out on the Nuclear missiles so come on an ICBM.

Oh Star Wars was something just to cripple the USSR economy ot make it fall
where we use 7% they ahd to use 35% and that screwed them over.

Lol dude there is no evidence there, and you aren't arguing anything. But, I can't let it go.

Our missle defense systems are a costly mess with a low rate of success and a high bill. Some say too high, as the risk of an ICBM attack is less now than it has been since the ICBM's invention. The porous nature of America's borders could easily allow a small nuclear device to seep in, not to mention America's major ports. I say this not to spread fear, but as a general truth. A nation as large as ours cannot be defended from everything.

America's Major Ports are you serious. By January of Next year in every port there will be Nuclear radiation scanners at every port so there is no way a bomb will get in, and if it does the ship will be already be sailing away. Plus besides a port how will it get in, by plane don't think so.

If a 180 pound mexican immigrant can easily pass between borders everyday, so can a nuclear weapon. If 1000 Pounds of Marijuana or Cocaine can be transported between Canada and the US or Panama and the US or Cuba and the US, so can a nuclear weapon.

Yes that is true, I do doubt you have a thousand pounds at once, plus you are carrying at least a 100 pound bomb across the Rio Grande river and then a fence to cross, plus i wouldn't doubt it if they did have some kind of radiation scanner set up along the border of Mexico