Support the troops?

distorted? so our commitment to forcibly asserting an american-based "democracy" on a country isn't a distorted view of how the world should be? many countries manage just fine with socialism.

oh, and what about Somalia? we go in there, stir up the shit, and leave the country in anarchy...do we still have troops standing there, until a sustainable gov't forms? why not?

 

well we will never agree it seems. you people refuse to read whats already been posted and keep asking the same questions over and over.

and that secure building in wash (the pentagon) you pointed out what would you have had the goverment do to avoid that impact?
shot the plane down ?

i would not have blamed them if they did. but then we would be here right now arguing that there was no concrete proff the plane was heading for the pentagon.

as for the THEY i already said who they are. if your intrested go back and reread.

proof they attacked us has been given also. but you ignore it.

a soultion that will work,
i have asked but none have the answer.
so where is it?

break your motives down to the most simple form and maybe you and the rest of us can learn your real motives in why you belive what to do.

 

because clinton and the UN were fools is why.

whats your point? do you think russia never invaded a country? they did and for lesser cause than the US has now.

 

my question is, if they did indeed attack us (I'm entertaining that possibility), then why?
and why are we dragging out conflict in Iraq?
you still haven't answered this: What does Iraq/Saddam have to do with 9/11?

the Pentagon, White House, and Capitol Hill are all "no-fly" zones; you could't fly a remote controlled plane 5 miles away without them finding out.

inconsistencies breed questions. only non-thinkers will just accept what they're told as truth.

 

ahh, so you admit that what the US is doing, in effect, is spreading an empire.

this is more than likely why they vow to keep attacking us.

 

no we invaded but not to spread an empire.
hell the US has puerto rico right now and has asked the people to make a decission on what they want continue as commonwealth. become a state or indenpendence. its up to the people here to choose if the us was so concerned with maintaing an empire it wouldnt be up to the people and thats a fact.

as for the no fly zone what about reagon airport? buy the time a plane diverted from there tward a building and it was noticed and then scramble fighter to shoot it down they wouldnt have time to learn its intentions much less shoot it down before it hit a target.

 

as for invading iraq im not totally sure truthfully and never said i was, but i would suspect that because of its central location and many border countries its the bait for the terror groups. i also said that in other posts that you apparently didnt read or you would not have had to ask again.

 

what doesn't quite add up are the reports that CIA knew about impeding attacks, yet the overall tone in Washington was one of indifference.

 

and becuase we invaded is not why they attacked us. maybe reason for continued attacks on our troops there but not why they hijacked planes on 9/11 or bombed wtc with a car bomb or any other number of attacks they commited on none muslim countries prior to the war in iraq.

 

what cia impending attacks? if you mean from terror groups sure they might have known it was in the works but without the patratic act how could they investagate it?
they cant go arrest them just cause they dont like their name without some proff. hence wire taps of those know to be terror related.

so you call your mom your ok. you call bin laden and they listen to you. so what

no personally i dont like the patrait act. it wasnt needed because the goverment has been easedropping for many years now. every since the war on drugs maybe prior to that even.

 

the other thing that doesn't makes sense is the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy.

why, because that shows some sort of weakness in the macho attitude we try to maintain? a little reasoning is not in order, which may inevitably result in a stand-off anyway?

 

its just our military and police forces are reactive. until a threat is clearly determined which means others have to take action aginst them first.
then they go in offensive mode. and once in that mode should fight to win.

 

well, that's something I agree on also (we actually agree on a few things)


but supposedly the CIA knew that attacks were coming soon, but nobody was in Washington was on alert, Bush went on vacation, and then bam..planes hit WTC and the Pentagon; it's as if nobody in the pentagon took the warnings seriously.

the patriot act will actually target calls made to middle-eastern countries, after they revised it.

 

no because it encurages more terror acts.
like a little kid throwing a temper fit in the floor of walmart becuase he/she wants a toy. the parents give in buy the toy so kid will shut up and the next time you go to walmart and the kid sees something else they want they throw a fit again.

has nothing to do with being macho
its common sence.
you cave to their demands once they will do it again. and why? because it worked the last time.

 

not really caving into their demands, but to meet them half-way; they have to compromise something also, you know, come to some sort of agreement.

if it doesn't work, then resort to plan B (the offensive), or a stand-off.

 

thats probably thier wrong doing there. they knew it was bound to happen but when? they cant stay on full alert 24/7 and restrict airtraffic out of R.R for years on end jsut waiting. if they did that the terrorist would be winning.
and with people here in this country so apposed to defending ourselves isnt like we could have bombed prior to an attack without even more of an outcry.

although i am not sure why more liberal didnt throw fits when clinton bombed targets just for the hell of it. like asprin factories.

and people talk about how many kids and women we kill in iraq now. and how the embargos starved them to death. did you people hear of the oil for food program? they were starved by sadam not the US they had the money and means to get food but instead he pocketed the money.

 

I'm trying to remember who said it (probably Rumsfeld) : "a military base over an oil field..what could be better than that?" (or something to that effect)

it's statements like this that make me question agenda

 

none extremst will comprimise just as you an i have comprimised and stopped the name calling. and actually discuss the issue.

but those that refuse to comprimise can not be compramised with.
the us is not going to take a womens vote away from her.
or any of the other demands they made

 

he might have said that. but also the quote may be out of context

may it was sarcasim. persoanlly i would not prefer to base equipment over a flamable material. or maybe due to the ease of refueling equipment. or maybe because they wanted all the oil for them selves.

many of the what if possiblities that some here seem to thrive on.

 

oh, I know Clinton was no saint; he had his questionable agendas too, and was manipulated by his respective interest groups.

I did hear of that oil for food program, that was fucked up; I don't think Saddam was a saint either, but we did support him in the 80's, then for some reason (which I don't fully believe), we just stopped keeping an eye on him; though it's a distinct possibility he had his own agenda all along too.