View Full Version : OBL Dead?

23rd Sep 2006, 14:48

What have you folks on your side of the pond heard?

23rd Sep 2006, 15:21
OBL can't be dead. The restrictions on carry on are still in effect at YYC as of last night.

Clarence Oveur
23rd Sep 2006, 15:27
If he is, who will be the new bogeyman?

23rd Sep 2006, 17:15
LAJ, man you just keep getting funnier and funnier!:p

You just keep cracking me up!:}

(What, is that the twentieth or thirtieth time you have posted that?:p )

23rd Sep 2006, 17:57
Not even a little bit?;)

tony draper
23rd Sep 2006, 18:17
One has heard he is unwell,let us hope it is nothing trivial.

23rd Sep 2006, 21:16
If he is dead, he is no longer suffering.

I hope he`s not dead then.

(trouble is, if he`s alive, the rest of us are suffering.........hmmmm, tricky)

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd Sep 2006, 22:48
Damn! There goes my $25000000...:ugh:

24th Sep 2006, 00:30

One has heard he is unwell,let us hope it is nothing trivial.

Is this the first time you have quoted Churchill? :ok: Tis a good one though and so appropriate. :E

24th Sep 2006, 00:36
Hope it's not true. One was looking forward to sending him off down a 40 foot razor blade, into a vat of iodine.

24th Sep 2006, 03:10
Can't we ask Danny?

24th Sep 2006, 04:50
Is this the first time you have quoted Churchill?

I thought it was Basil Fawlty on "gourmet night."

24th Sep 2006, 07:37
The good old A-rabs. They portray us as infidils who cannot be trusted,
yet there is far more bitter fighting and mistrust between brother Arabs.

Which is why, I am told, you so often see Arab men holding hands when walking together.

This dates way back, and it means that your companion cannot stab you in the back! Well that's comforting!! ;)

24th Sep 2006, 09:53
i see the french have got it wrong again.
it must be a national characterisitc.

Spuds McKenzie
24th Sep 2006, 10:53
And while we're at it... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

24th Sep 2006, 13:03
it means that your companion cannot stab you in the back! wouldn't they have to hold right hands though which would mean one of them would be walking backwards? :confused:

24th Sep 2006, 16:07
Nah, he's never dead. Look here:


He's simply shaved his beard off and ditched the turban:E

24th Sep 2006, 19:16
Spuds, Lima;

It stands to reason. The schoolyard bully only likes you if you allow him to continue to take your lunch money and beat the crap out of you. If you fight back, it makes him angrier.

How you choose to respond is a question of courage or acceptance of submission.

25th Sep 2006, 00:46
Remember the arguement before going into Iraq for no valid reason, looks as though it is coming true. Damn those cheese eating capitulators - they were right. :}
Well it's a no brainer really innit? - Invade a sovereign state for no (validated) reason, you're going to p!ss a lot of people off and thus create a recruitment surge. It's simply the fullfillment of what was a known result before the Iraq invasion.:confused:

If Iraq was in any way linked to 911 – fair enough – 5 yrs on no link. :rolleyes:

The only thing Al Qaeda & Iraq had in common was the letter ‘Q’, now of course they do have something in common. The beards are having a field unfortunately. Afghanistan really needed to be properly done, and resources allocated as such.

Hey doesn’t China have WMD, sells arms to the baddies, and have a shameful Human rights record, a Communist society AND no Democracy !!!! – HHmmmmm.:hmm:

25th Sep 2006, 02:40
A sad statistic will emerge in the coming weeks. More US soldiers will have lost their lives in Iraq than people died on 9/11. And for what ? There is more torture and killing in Iraq than ever before, still no sign of WMDs and Al Qaeda has now flooded Anbar Province and controls it when it was never even in the country in the first place.
Great job George :ok:

Okay, then using your reasoning we should have pleaded for peace with Japan after Pearl Harbor, because a hell of a lot more lives were lost in World War II than in the Pearl Harbor attack.

No, no, I'm sorry, not with Japan, but we should have immediately signed a peace agreement with Germany. After all, it was Japan that attacked us, not Germany. As you are aware of there are a lot of posters here that have claimed we, the United States, had little affect on the outcome of World War II, didn't need our help at all.

Yup, my bad, I'm sorry. What on earth was I thinking of?:p

(Oh, one other thing, your comment "US soldiers will have lost their lives" is well stated, not lost in combat, not killed in action, rather all deaths from all and any activities. This includes combat loses (obviously), accidents, medical problem, stupidity and any other cause of death. Not to belittle the loss of any life, but things always need to be kept in perspective.)

25th Sep 2006, 08:40
I wonder if Bush can get away for the funeral?

Too bad all these lives are wasted in Iraq. "There is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5087%0A&en=0ed64eec8dd46503&ex=1159243200&pagewanted=all)”


25th Sep 2006, 09:34
Okay, then using your reasoning we should have pleaded for peace with Japan after Pearl Harbor, because a hell of a lot more lives were lost in World War II than in the Pearl Harbor attack.

No, Con, but good of you to react as predicted.

If you want to use the Pearl Harbour metphor then I shall indulge you. Japan attacks PH, the US half heartedly goes to war with Japan, makes some sort of peace deal after 6 months or so, then the US "discovers" evidence linking Venezula with the PH attacks and invades there. Japanese sponsored guerillas then make life difficult for the US while Japan slowly takes over various bits of the Pacific region.

Unfortunately no WW II metaphor works in this situation so it is almost pointless using them. Your president and his team has made a monumental cock up based on lies, poor planning and a total lack of understanding for anything but the big profit margin. The US, and by default the rest of Western society, is likely to be plauged by terrorists and an upsurge in violence caused by the invasion of Iraq. The US Armed forces are going to be stuck in Iraq for at least the next 10 years, with all the attendant loss of life that that will bring, who knows maybe we will see a war with Iran explode there soon as well.

BTW just a little something for you to mull over....
Powell and Rice assure us that Iraq is not a threat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU)

It is always good to keep things in perspective.

25th Sep 2006, 10:17
Mr. Sock,

You've identified the problem in a clear, forthright way. Would this be your solution, as continued interference is only more damaging? I must admit is has salient points for me.

"The only food for thought is more thought."- Peter Ustinov
American Studies
Notes in Passing
Brainiacs of the Midwest:

Unhappy voters imperil heartland Republicans

Pat Wilkerson says U.S. troops and veterans are her first priority, believes family values are important and voted Republican in 2004. But in November she'll switch parties -- though not because Democrats have won her over.

"When I vote now, it's not who I'm voting for, it's who I'm voting against," said the 59-year-old administrator, adding she is fed up with the war in Iraq and wants troops home.

Great idea. Pat. You've got the Big Picture on the State of the World Today. But your brainwave doesn't go far enough.

Let's have ALL THE TROOPS HOME. For about five years. Yes, every single solider stationed outside American homeland soil comes back now. Out of Europe. Out of Asia. Out of Korea. Out of Guantanamo. Out of South America. Out of the Balkans. Out of the MidEast.

The Air Force shall also be withdrawn from all bases everywhere. Especially Turkey and Diego Garcia so they can't operate as a watchdog over the oil fields and the world can start paying the Iranian piper whatever it decides oil is worth. And the Navy too. No more securing the sea lanes of the world. No more rolling the carriers up to help out in the next Third World Disaster. You get a tsunami that your corrupt plutocrats didn't budget for or prepare for? You are on your own. Crank up your backhoes and start digging mass graves in the muck.

Yes, for five years what we do in the world and for the world is exactly..... NOTHING. Instead, we work with the Pat Wilkerson's of the country and just parade and admire our armed forces here at home. Think of the fuel oil and aviation gas we'll save. As for the rest of the world, well, they can just pound sand. Which is what they will be doing in exactly 30 days after all the American forces in the world just pack up and head home for a long period of R&R.

Spuds McKenzie
25th Sep 2006, 10:47
Well, looks like the usual suspects are having a bit of a tantrum... :p

25th Sep 2006, 11:16
Ben There,

America will not pull all it's troops home for 5 years. There a number of reasons for this but you seem to have the impression that US forces are stationed around the world in some sort of philanthropic endeavor. Now don't get me wrong, the US has indeed done many good and wonderful things around the world - and received little attention for that work. The thing is, having forces stationed in Turkey, Diego Garcia, Europe, Japan etc, allows America to project it's power and its world hedgemony. It also allows the US to protect it's interests and flow of energy requirements. So unless you are deeply naeive or have a hugely flawed understanding of how the world works, you must realise that the idea of America becoming isolationist wont fly - not in my lifetime anyway.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, on so many levels, but unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle now. It is like the old Clash song, "If I go there will be trouble and if I stay it will be double". The neo-cons have manoever us (the West) into an open ended conflict that - at best - will take years to settle and at worst will cost us more than we can imagine.

The US has squandered all the goodwill it had following 9/11, it has demolished its credibility for years to come among many in the world and the only gain has been to increase the chance of terrorism.

To return to the theme of this thread, it matters not a whit anymore, if OBL is dead or alive, the torch of radicalism burns brighter and more ferociously now than it did 5 years ago. Responsibility for this has been the Bush Administration, much more than any hate spewing immam.

Congratulations :D

25th Sep 2006, 13:05
Ain't that the - horrible - truth

25th Sep 2006, 13:10
To return to the theme of this thread, it matters not a whit anymore, if OBL is dead or alive, the torch of radicalism burns brighter and more ferociously now than it did 5 years ago.I remember the triumphant "WE GOT HIM" after Saddam was captured. The PR circus with Saddam's sons corpses. The big head lines when al-Zarqawi was killed. The breaking news when the 9/11 mastermind was apprehendid in Pakistan. What did it brought? Nothing, it only got worse. You can't cure the illness if you don't adress the disease instead of the symptoms. But that won't happen as long as this brilliant piece of intellect is POTUS.

WW2 metaphores are always used when losing the discussion.

As for Powell and Rice, c'mon Sock, they're politicians, diba? You know when they're lying..

25th Sep 2006, 15:23
When exactly did Iraq attack the US Con ? I think it was the other way round wasn't it ?

Sorry LAJ, I need to work more on my satire. That's why I put the bit in about Germany.

Any way, carry on.:ok:

25th Sep 2006, 15:37
You know you do bring up a rather interesting point.

(Seeing as this thread is approaching "Hamster Wheel" status.)

Do you think, or believe that Hitler/Germany would have ever attacked the US if (big if) Germany had conquered the UK? After all Germay U-Boats were attacking US shipping prior to December 7, 1941.

It's a long reach drawing parallels in justifying invading Iraq I'll grant you.

25th Sep 2006, 16:09
Ah but LAOJ it was the US troops in Saudi Arabia enforcing those no fly zones that were the stated reason for Al Queda's attack on 9/11. So tell me, are we really worse off? No attacks in the USA since then... But keeping the noflys in place and protecting Saudi arabia would have required continued troops in the KSA. So maybe we are safer. Maybe, Iraq is bad, but not AS bad as troops in the KSA.

Considering how poor our internal security really is in America, it would seam that it has worked... Also, the tempo of attacks on American targets around the world is dramatically lower than it had been (outside the Iraq theater). Do I have to list all the attacks that cumlinated in 9/11?

It seams like the terrorists are keeping a deliberately hands off American targets outside of Iraq. So maybe it is working, atleast for us.


26th Sep 2006, 04:22
Do I disagree? Yes and no.

I think in general people suck, and they just want to be angry, and if it wasn't Iraq, it would be something else.... I don't think that there has EVER been a shortage of extremists around the globe, and that the increasing rate of them has more to do with the internet than anything else. Just look at the the 9/11 conspiracy theory nutcases if you don't believe me...

You forget that I was against Iraq, but from much earlier than the 2nd gulf war. I have said all along that the second war was inevitable because of mistakes made at the end of the first war, exacerbated by actively ignoring the problem for 10 years.

By the Eve of the war we were what I have repeatedly called "pot committed" and once attempts to get Saddam to abdicate were foiled by France/Germany the outcome was inevitable.

But I am not at all convinced that maintaining the status quo (which would have included thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia) would have made us any safer. Indeed, instead of fighting in Iraq, the extremists that would have resulted from that (like Atta) would have had instead no other venue to fight except the streets of America.

Do not forget that 9/11 happened BEFORE Iraq. so clearly the status quo wasn't working.


West Coast
26th Sep 2006, 05:03
"I don't honestly think Hitler could have dreamed of taking the US"

Not alone, but perhaps with Japanese assistance.

26th Sep 2006, 08:16

There were more terrorist attacks by internal parties in the US before 9/11 than anything else.

The Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympic Park bomb and Oklahoma City were all acts of terrorism commited by Americans. The only terrorist attack on US soil by external forces was the attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993. So the statement that terrorist attakcs on US soil have been avoided because of the Iraq invasion is a red herring. Your assertion that US interests are safer since the invasion of Iraq is, frankly, bollox.
2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
January 22, Drive-By Shooting at a U.S. Consulate. Armed militants on motorcycles fired on the U.S. Consulate in Calcutta, India, killing 5 Indian security personnel and wounding 13 others.
2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
October 15, Bomb Attack on U.S. Diplomats in the Gaza Strip. A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a car in a U.S. diplomatic convoy passing through the northern Gaza Strip. Three security guards, all employees of DynCorp, were killed. A fourth was wounded. The diplomats were on their way to interview Palestinian candidates for Fulbright scholarships to study in the United States.
2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006 - attempted bombing of US embassy in Damascus Syria.

If terrorists are keeping their hands off US targets abroad why has the State Department increased their security budget for embassy staff by $30 million and ramping up external security for Embassy buildings?

if it wasn't Iraq, it would be something else....
This quote is incredibly naeive. Christopher Meyer, the former UK ambassador to the US, has been quote thus "There is plenty of evidence around at the
moment that home-grown terrorism was partly radicalized and fuelled by
what is going on in Iraq". Iraq has galvanised support and increased anger in the Middle East and prompted people who were previously non-commital to fall to the side of the terrorist, you see they were either with us or against us :D

once attempts to get Saddam to abdicate were foiled by France/Germany the outcome was inevitable.

Remind me again what justification the US had for demanding that the head of state from another country should abdicate? France and Germany did not support the invasion of Iraq because they did not see enough evidence of a good reason to invade. Do you know what? They were right.

Do not forget that 9/11 happened BEFORE Iraq.

Stop trying to link 9/11 with Iraq, there is not one shred of evidence that there is any connection between the two.

26th Sep 2006, 14:12
Do you think, or believe that Hitler/Germany would have ever attacked the US if (big if) Germany had conquered the UK? After all Germay U-Boats were attacking US shipping prior to December 7, 1941.Since we're on this track, Germany declared war to the US in the hope Japan would declare war on Russia. Hitler never intended to attack the US (homeland). Nor to invade the UK, Russia always was the real target (read Mein Kampf). Stop trying to link 9/11 with Iraq, there is not one shred of evidence that there is any connection between the two.This illustrates how effective the Bush administration's brainwashing of the US public opinion was...

26th Sep 2006, 16:06

You left out MANY MANY embassy bombings before 9/11. US territory my friend.

Furthermore you casually forgot the USS Cole...

Sorry, While you listed many events, they are not at a faster clip than Pre 9/11. Nor are they more deadly.

The domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, furthermore make my case completely. People suck, and throught the miracle of the internet it is VERY easy to egg those sucky people on now.

Just imagine what Charles Manson could have done with a little internet savvy. He took a bunch of rich spoiled kids in the 60s with no gripes other than they were bored and turned them into basically what we would call terrorists today.

So nope. I am not linking 9/11 to Iraq per sea, but do not for a second think that it had NOTHING to do it. It may not have been funded by Iraq, but the no flies and troops in Saudi that were caused by Saddam's previous actions have been categorically stated as OSama's reason for 9.11

I think it is you that are burying your head in the sand my friend. A very naive view of people as all lovey dovey, if we would just stop x then in y seconds we would be showered with love and flowers. Bullshit.


Clarence Oveur
26th Sep 2006, 16:52
You left out MANY MANY embassy bombings before 9/11. US territory my friend. Would it be too much to ask for you to name just a few.

It's perverse logic to use unintended results as a justification.

26th Sep 2006, 18:20
American isolationism isn’t as far-fetched as you might believe, Bigfat. In fact, it is consistently present in the traditional American public sentiment, and has manifested itself frequently throughout our history as a nation. I think its form could take not so much withdrawal from world affairs and events, but more careful assessment of self- and mutual interest with our international partners.

George Washington admonished us to “avoid foreign entanglements” in his farewell address in 1798. Jefferson refused to ally with Napoleon, even though England was still a lethal and hostile power confronting the new American republic. Extra-national colonial development, another form of foreign entanglement, was never an American policy objective. Despite our affinity and gratitude to France as fellow democratic revolutionaries as well as allies in our Revolution, we remained neutral throughout the Franco-Prussian conflict. Woodrow Wilson won his reelection in 1916 on a platform of ‘He kept us out of the war’. F. D. Roosevelt’s Republican opposition’s focus was an isolationist platform at the onset of WWII. Our opposition to Cold War Soviet communist expansion and hegemony faced a consistent internal opposition at home, largely based on isolationist sentiment, and less on the socialist constituency within the US.

The left and right in this country have seized on this sentiment, each at times embracing it to forward their politcal agendas. Today, one of the key campaign issues of the Democrat party is to demand impeccable accountability for foreign adventure and ‘Bring the troops home’. The pillars of Democrat party, traditional established media icons and academic institutions from early primary through post-graduate university levels have been castigating US foreign policy for its interventionism since the Viet Nam era. It would be difficult for that constituency to not support US disengagement from the world’s problems. In this sense, isolationism transcends the current, bitter divisions in US politics.

Everyone who closely follows American politics senses an impending paradigm shift, not unlike the Reagan-led reversal of the malaise of the Carter period. The form it takes is open to conjecture. If the Democrats regain parity or even advantage from November elections, they will find themselves caught up in the frustration and seething anger of the American electorate over the rejection of the United States by the populations of nations we had long perceived as allies and friends, Where American opinion not long ago held the United Nations in high esteem, it now favors not only withdrawal, but ejection of the institution itself from our soil. Further, Americans asked why we spend more on worldwide relief efforts, which seemingly generate at best antipathy, while the demands of our own disaster, Katrina, are not adequately met. Why are we dieing in Iraq, rather than securing our own borders from virtually unimpeded illegal violation?

In this light, it’s not too far-fetched, and in fact is actually a burgeoning sentiment among Americans, to desire a new focus for national strategy. Issues such as attaining energy independence, overhauling our failing education systems, securing our borders, and providing safety and security from the Islamic fascist ideology for ourselves, essentially domestic issues, are moving to the fore at the expense of issues such as our perception of responsibility for maintaining world peace, free-trade, and democratization of subjected peoples.

I doubt if we will ever achieve the disengagement of the Swiss or Swedish models of doctrinal neutrality, but I think we will attempt to engage and find common ground bilaterally with nations willing to accept us with less rancor, such as Japan, Australia, Canada, India, Israel, Taiwan, Columbia, and most of Eastern Europe, while we seek to add Russia and China to such a ‘new civilization of the willing’. I’m afraid Western Europe is, if not lost, too disoriented, and its majority too affronted with us, to remain a viable partner in the shaping of advanced 21st century civilization.

As for the UK, it is undecided as to where, or in what form, its future lies, its institutions as well as its majority increasingly hostile to America, while hope remains with a strong minority holding opposing views.

Lest this essay be viewed as a pitiful rant by a chauvinistic, self-pitying American, let me put forth that the world might benefit from American turtle-shelling for at least an interim. The status quo is not working well. Attitudes need adjusting and new perspectives tried out so that consensus can be once again achieved. It all points to the need for American retrenchment, of which I am in favor

26th Sep 2006, 21:06
For clarence Oveurx
1993 - First World Trade Center bombing, February 26: 6 Killed, 1,000 injured
1993 - Attack at CIA Headquarters in McLean, VA, January 25: 2 Killed, 3 injured
1994 Brooklyn Bridge Shooting in NY (lebanese with a machine gun shoots up jewish bus)
1995 - Killing of two US Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995
11/13/95 - Truck bombing of US National Guard training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
1996 - Khobar Towers bombing: 19 American servicemen killed
1998 - US embassy bombings: U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 214 killed (12 Americans); U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 10 killed
2000 - USS Cole attacked, 17 U.S. Navy sailors killed
2001 - World Trade Center attacked and the Pentagon attacked by airplanes, 2995 killed
December 22 2001: Richard Reid,

From the Wikipedia, Al Qaeda’s list of grievances against the West included American participation in the first Gulf War, military operations in Somalia, and military involvement in Yemen. However, the United States presence in Saudi Arabia - a state that is home to a number of the holiest sites in Islam - was perhaps the focal point of al Qaeda’s anger. Permanent U.S. military installations in the region represented a lack of Saudi Arabian control over its territory and were thought to threaten the Muslim sacred cities of Mecca and Medina. Osama bin Laden believed that “the Americans were infidels and their garrisons propped up a corrupt, insufficiently Islamic Saudi elite.” As U.S. economic and political interests continued to create a greater presence in the Middle East, al Qaeda began targeting U.S. interests abroad.

So tell me how the status quo with troops in Saudi was a good thing?

For Sock

The Iraq invasion was March 19 2003. The first couple attacks on your list were pre Iraq war and therefore prove my point and hurt yours...

But don't let details get in the way of your dogma.


28th Sep 2006, 08:33

regardless of what you say, my argument is pretty clear.

The Bush Administration launched a war based on lies, I give you this letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



On Point 1 - There was at that time very little, if any, solid evidence that Iraq presented a threat to the US.

On Point 2 - There was at that time no solid evidence that Iraq had any connection or direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

As far as I am concerned all other issues become moot.

28th Sep 2006, 16:10
Moot? So you conceded your arguement that Iraq caused more terrorism which was your point...

Nice red herring/ bait and switch though...


28th Sep 2006, 20:41
I concede nothing.

According to the NIE, Iraq fuels terrorism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5382762.stm)

Wino you can play word games as much as you, like but the thing is the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of thousands of American troops tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and has placed the United States more at risk. It has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow.

I will say it again, in case you missed it. The Bush Administration lied its way into a war it cannot get out of for the next 10 years at least.

The cost to the US taxpayer will be enormous, it is currently costing you approx 2 billion per month.

I guess if you are happy with that situation, there is nothing more to be said.

28th Sep 2006, 22:09
of course if you look at MORE of the NIE report your conclusion is invalidated again.


I use the BBC because you worship them so much...

Are we leaving Iraq anytime soon? Nope. and Again, I was against the war but from a MUCH earlier date than you. By the time you started in with the Anti bush Tirades we were already pop committed and going in unless we could get Saddam to abdicate. Of course with France and Germany encouraging saddam there was no chance of that. But hey, it made nice domestic points during their elections.


29th Sep 2006, 07:01
obviously, you will never agree to my point of view, but on reading the decalssified sections there are successes, and I am not for a moment denying this but the invasion of Iraq has not been the success the Bush Administration was expecting, it has increased the adherence to the jihadist movement (and with that increased the risk of terrorism around the world) and, more crucially diverted resources and manpower away from dealing with Al Qaida and their fellow travellers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We currently have no idea if OBL is dead or alive and if the honey-trap theory is one you wish to use, why not keep the battle inside Afghanistan?
Iraq had no terrorist organisations operating inside it's borders, there is no evidence it was sponsoring external terrorist groups - certainly not to the same level that the Saudi royal family were and there is evidence that Pakistani secret service were complicit in a number of terrorist attacks.
I will say it again, as it is obviously not sinking in, the Bush Administration lied its way into a war it cannot get out of for the next 10 years at least. The cost to the US taxpayer will be enormous, it is currently costing you approx 2 billion dollars per month.
If you are happy with that situation, there is nothing more to be said.

29th Sep 2006, 07:49
Now that USA is turning into kind of "Popular Republic" where torture is allowed and President is increasing his power so that the ordinary citizen will weigh less than a subject in dark age kingdoms. who would rejoice from OBL's death?

Not GWB for sure!

Without OBL he would never have had his antidemocratic laws voted.

29th Sep 2006, 14:13
I will say it again, as it is obviously not sinking in, the Bush Administration lied its way into a war it cannot get out of for the next 10 years at least

Yes sock, you said that, but that wasn't the point of the thread, or the earlier arguement. Stop trying to move the goal posts... But you are definately right about a war we can't get out of for 10 years. Hell we are STILL in Germany 60 years later.

Alquaeda's rallying cry was the troops in Saudi Arabia. You always say we have to diffuse the causes of terrorism. If that was Alquaeda's main cause, how could we have done that WITHOUT taking out Saddam? So do you want us to stop the causes or not?

Again what it proves is that people suck and just want to be angry. Undo one cause and they find another...

Without OBL he would never have had his antidemocratic laws voted

If its been voted on its hardly "anti" democratic. But keep up the bashing...

29th Sep 2006, 14:43

I am not moving the goalposts, the Iraq war was the wrong war to be fought at the wrong time. Making intel fit because the truth doesnt and waging war on that basis is simply wrong.

Alquaeda's rallying cry was the troops in Saudi Arabia.
Attacking Iraq may have moved some troops out of RSA but it has killed over 3,000 of those troops and disabled God knows how many more, but there remains a number of US troops in RSA, as far as I am aware, who are mainly logistics and Patriot crews. Is your argument that OBL defined and decided US foriegn policy on the strength of terrorist attacks? If so that is a very dangerous path to be treading. Do feel the deaths and injuries to US service personnel are worth the sacrifice? The monthly death toll of Iraqi citizens, whilst of no concequence to you in the US, now far outstrips anything that Saddam managed in his time as leader - I believe the monthly average is between 500 and 750 people.

Had the advice of the US military been heeded by the Whitehouse, and Afghanistan had been a mission that was genuinely accomplished, we may well have had a definitive answer as to whether OBL was dead or not. Al Quaida would have been decapitated and much of the anger of Fundamental Jihadism would not even have occured. Afghanistan is a much easier country to keep wars away from jounos as well.

Where I do fundamentally agree with you is that Saddam should have been dealt with in 1991. It still amazes me that Bush 41 refused to attack Baghdad and topple the regime when they had the chance.

Hell we are STILL in Germany 60 years later.

Totally unrelated. There was never an uprising against the invasion of Germany after peace had been declared. You cannot use WW II metphors in the current situation, they are irrelevant.

29th Sep 2006, 18:48
Antidemocraric laws can be passed under democratic procedure:

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

Phillippe Pétain was voted full powers by a vast majority by French Assembly after 1940 defeat.

Antidemocratic laws means they are dangerous for democracy!

Did you get it?

29th Sep 2006, 19:19
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.Actually, Gramps, I think he got the Chancellorship with about 20% of the popular vote.

29th Sep 2006, 21:01
Hitler lost both the elections he ran and was appointed Chancellor by Von Papen in a backroom deal.

29th Sep 2006, 21:17
Is OBL dead?

Possibly - you never see him on TV/Internet broadcast, unlike his cohort: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5393828.stm

apologies for stepping on the thread:)

30th Sep 2006, 10:55
.....................allowed Tony Blair to be Prime Minister, backed by a minority of voters, as allowed by UK laws.

Adolf Hitler party got about 1/3 of votes, was chosen as Chancellor, backed by Von Papen right party without any break of German Constitution.