PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 commission is it helpfull......and to whome exactly.



Hornet57
04-14-2004, 09:38 AM
This whole 9/11 commission in my opinion is turning to a democratic "lets get Bush" fiasco more then it is to get to the bottom of what happen on 9/11 and how we can make sure it won't happen again.

If you listen to some of the questions at the Press confrence yesturday it seems that the press already believe Bush is guilty before they even find anything he was guilty about.
Anyone think the President should appologize to the American people?
Unbias reporting? Riiiiiiiiight....I didn't see Clinton take the stand and answer some questions that I think has much to do with the "deliquency" of the CIA, FBI etc., prior to 9/11 and I cant help but ask myself a question I believe I know the answer to..........why not?

In anycase Usama and his thugs are probably laughing their sand filled asses off right about now. He was the cause of the catastrophy, eveyone knows it. Saddam was a threat to the US and everyone knows it, But the idiot reporters are trying to blame Bush. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Hornet57
04-14-2004, 09:38 AM
This whole 9/11 commission in my opinion is turning to a democratic "lets get Bush" fiasco more then it is to get to the bottom of what happen on 9/11 and how we can make sure it won't happen again.

If you listen to some of the questions at the Press confrence yesturday it seems that the press already believe Bush is guilty before they even find anything he was guilty about.
Anyone think the President should appologize to the American people?
Unbias reporting? Riiiiiiiiight....I didn't see Clinton take the stand and answer some questions that I think has much to do with the "deliquency" of the CIA, FBI etc., prior to 9/11 and I cant help but ask myself a question I believe I know the answer to..........why not?

In anycase Usama and his thugs are probably laughing their sand filled asses off right about now. He was the cause of the catastrophy, eveyone knows it. Saddam was a threat to the US and everyone knows it, But the idiot reporters are trying to blame Bush. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-14-2004, 11:00 AM
"is it helpful?"

Only slightly. It's mostly just a political fiasco.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-14-2004, 03:32 PM
It'a funny that when Bush is questioned or critisized, people always responds by saying Clinton did this or Kerry thinks that. Like the people aren't capable of evaluating something on it's own.

People on this forum have a hard time understanding that I can critisize cetrtain things about Bush without saying that Kerry is better or actually without saying saomething about Clinton or Kerry at all!

Perhaps Clinton should have been asked (EDIT: during his presidency), but wasn't and they didn't want to repeat the mistake ? Perhaps there is another reason ?? I don't care because it's irrelevant right at this moment.

There is a hearing now and like every meaningful hearing, people will ask the toughest questions they can think of. If Bush did things right, this hearing shouldn't be too hard for him.


It's like many of you people can only discuss things relatively and not absolutely.
(consult dictionary.com if you don't get my point)

Perhaps it's the consequence of an educational system based on multiple choice exams. You just have to compare some answers served on a silver platter, whereas other people are trained to generate the different answers themselves and then pick the best one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[This message was edited by Livoff on Wed April 14 2004 at 02:51 PM.]

[This message was edited by Livoff on Wed April 14 2004 at 04:53 PM.]

Hornet57
04-14-2004, 04:21 PM
Livoff,

Where have you been, can't say I missed you because frankly I didn't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Now you posted Wed April 14 2004 02:32 PM

"Perhaps Clinton should have been asked, but wasn't and they didn't want to repeat the mistake ? Perhaps there is another reason ??

There sure is another reason but I guess we are not going to find out are we?

I don't care because it's irrelevant right at this moment."

How you figure its irrelevant? Usama didnt start planning the attacks on the day Bush took office did he?

I would like to know how many briefing he had with the Head of the FBI George Tenent compaired with Monica Lowinski for example. Irrelevent? you still think that was personal?

There is a hearing now and like every meaningful hearing, people will ask the toughest questions they can think of. If Bush did things right, this hearing shouldn't be too hard for him.

Exactly and if Clinton did everything right it should'nt be hard for him either. If we really want to get to the bottom of this a "meaningful hearing should also be a complete hearing with all parties involved.


It's like many of you people can only discuss things relatively and not absolutely.
(consult dictionary.com if you don't get my point)

I have to sit here and get a History lesson from people (Liberals)comparing Vietnam with the situation in Iraq now. How is that absolute?

Perhaps it's the consequence of an educational system based on multiple choice exams. You just have to compare some answers served on a silver platter, whereas other people are trained to generate the different answers themselves and then pick the best one

Just answer my question and we can go on.

Why is it irrelevent that Clinton testifies about his actions to prevent 9/11?

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Livoff,

Clinton's performance in this case is relevant. If the 9-11 commission's job is to see what could've been done to prevent 9-11 then Clinton's performance in office is just as relevant as Bush's. I'm usually the last person to bring up Clinton when someone says something bad about Bush when it's not relevant (except in the stupid quotations category or when a European it up first) but in this case it's very relevant. However, I think the whole thing may be a waste of time since the commission seems at least as intent to distribute blame as it is focused on correcting problems.

While I can't say I missed you either, I can say you're a 1000 times more interesting to talk to than MisterNiceGuy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-14-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Where have you been, can't say I missed you because frankly I didn't<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't fool me, I know you did http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Example:

If discuss the whether Bush is smart or stupid, there is no need to drag Kerry into that disussion.

However, I discuss who I think should be the next president, there is every reason in the world to drag Kerry into that disussion.

In short, some things should be kept together and some things should be kept apart in given discussions, to avoid confusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why is it irrelevent that Clinton testifies about his actions to prevent 9/11?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is because this hearing is about how the current administration handled 9/11.

It would be very relevant and interestingh in another hearing on how the Clinton administration handled Osama Bin Laden. I can think of some harsh questions myself.

I am just tired of people facing an argument by giving an example of other people who has done worse. It never leads anywhere and adds nothing to the disussion besides confusion.

I might have blown some unnesessary extra steam off, but I might as well do it in your threads since we already disagree on several things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have to sit here and get a History lesson from people (Liberals)comparing Vietnam with the situation in Iraq now. How is that absolute?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not.
Tell them the difference between relative and absolute and inlude a link do dictionary.com http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Livoff
04-14-2004, 04:59 PM
Oh, the hearing is about 9/11 in general - ok then it's relevant. My bad

WTF? You only miss ppl you already agree with ? If I agreed with all you guys I would go to a different forum.

Being a relatively calm and balanced european I was looking for some serious arguing-resistance and the text under toramirs avatar says it all.

Thoramir
04-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Hehe, no Livoff, you just haven't been around long enough to be missed yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Though I generally don't miss anyone who only posts in political topics when they disapear for a while even if they do agree with me. I like Geist quite a bit (and we agree about 90% of the time), but I don't really miss him when he's gone. It's the guys/gals that make me laugh that I miss when they go offline for a while.

The text under my avatar was just for fun and well, sillyness. I asked one of the Ghost Recon moderators for it, I wouldn't take it too seriously. I don't think anyone around here would get a label like that without requesting it.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-14-2004, 05:20 PM
I know that the text is for fun, so was my comment.

I've been pretty busy with personal stuff (graduation, lessons in scuadiving, planning my trip to Australia etc.) so I haven't posted for a while.

I'm not only into politics. I'll just get to know people on the forum first.

Wouldn't it be odd if I went "Hello I'm livoff, here's some pictures from my summerholiday" ?

Hornet57
04-14-2004, 05:30 PM
Livoff wrote:

If discuss the whether Bush is smart or stupid, there is no need to drag Kerry into that disussion.

Correct but my problem is if someone is going to debate how stupid Bush is shouldn't that person prove to us how smart he is first?
Or else it might be a case of the "pot calling the cattle black." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, I discuss who I think should be the next president, there is every reason in the world to drag Kerry into that disussion.

Unless you are a European which makes the discussion irrelavent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"It is because this hearing is about how the current administration handled 9/11".

No the hearing is about how the current administration handled matters prior to 9/11
but it should include the prior administration since they have included the prior administrations heads of the CIA and FBI

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-14-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if someone is going to debate how stupid Bush is shouldn't that person prove to us how smart he is first?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really.
I can tell if I see a bad driver, although I don't have a drivers license myself.

Does a judge personally have to be raped in order to be able to give a fair sentence in a rape case?

Besides, my intelligence is well above average.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Unless you are a European which makes the discussion irrelavent
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I think our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan might disagree. Second, I think the rest of the population might disagree as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No the hearing is about how the current administration handled matters prior to 9/11
but it should include the prior administration since they have included the prior administrations heads of the CIA and FBI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already commented on that and I agree with you. I missed some parts of the hearing because I've been pretty busy lately.

Hornet57
04-14-2004, 08:10 PM
Not really.
"I can tell if I see a bad driver, although I don't have a drivers license myself."

So far Bush is handling his car like a pro. What's your point.

Does a judge personally have to be raped in order to be able to give a fair sentence in a rape case?

No but he has to see clear evidence of the rape case. He doesn't make up a sentence out of the top of his head or because he don't like the defendant.

Besides, my intelligence is well above average.

Maybe then you should run for President first and then pass judgment on a sitting President.
As it is now you dont even have a drivers licence so what do you know about running a country let alone a Super Power?

"First, I think our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan might disagree. Second, I think the rest of the population might disagree as well."

Well by "our troups" you mean the European Allies you still have no leg to stand on becaue they have nothing to say about our Presidential Elections either since the US president dont deploye any other Military then the US military.
And frankly who cares if the European population disagree. I don't mean to sound rude but do they care what we think of their selection of Presidents?

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-15-2004, 12:25 AM
By "our troops" I mean the Danish troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush didn't deploy them personally, but they are there because of the current president.

Secondly I'm saying that the population in my country is affected by the outcome of your election. you might not care, but that is beside the point.

I was pretty clear in my post but apparently you managed to confuse yourself.

The old common prejudice of americans are that they are arrogant and sound like they personally are the king of the world even when they misunderstand simple arguments.

I'm sure you're smart enough to stay out of that stereotype although you accidently lived up to it in your previous post.

Hornet57
04-15-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:
By "our troops" I mean the Danish troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush didn't deploy them personally, but they are there because of the current president.

Secondly I'm saying that the population in my country is affected by the outcome of your election. you might not care, but that is beside the point.

I was pretty clear in my post but apparently you managed to confuse yourself.

The old common prejudice of americans are that they are arrogant and sound like they personally are the king of the world even when they misunderstand simple arguments.

I'm sure you're smart enough to stay out of that stereotype although you accidently lived up to it in your previous post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not confused on iota my friend, it is you that is confused and I will explain quickly because I have a golf game to attend.

It is your government that made the decision to join the conflict with the US and the rest of the Allies. The US would have gone in regardless if Danish Troops joined or not.

On your second point, its it not whether I care or not what your population thinks. If your countries population does'nt like the decision your government made to join the conflict then you should be discussing their decission and not blame the US governmnet. In WWII our Population didnt want their people dying either but the president at the time felt we needed to help with taking down Hitler becaue if we didnt and Hitler won the war we would have been under his power sooner or later. You should be proud your country is smart/brave enough to join in a fight for freedom against terror. Unless you are into getting your trains and building blown up some day.

On your rhetoric about the US being arrogant, I suggest you think it over and take a long look at Chirac to see what arrogance is.

G'day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-15-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On your rhetoric about the US being arrogant, I suggest you think it over and take a long look at Chirac to see what arrogance is<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In many posts now, I have tried to show that you can't argue about wether something is right or wrong by just referring to people who has done worse.

So, we agree that Chirac is arrogant, then what? That kind of arguing is an express highway to nowhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In WWII our Population didnt want their people dying either but the president at the time felt we needed to help with taking down Hitler becaue if we didnt and Hitler won the war we would have been under his power sooner or later. You should be proud your country is smart/brave enough to join in a fight for freedom against terror.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, I am not against A war on terror. But I am very much against the way that THE war on terror is carried out. The war on terror is not a multiple choice question betwwen Bush or Osama.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is your government that made the decision to join the conflict with the US and the rest of the Allies. The US would have gone in regardless if Danish Troops joined or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is very true.

But the US puts pressure on allies that don't agree with them. Do you think that the Spanish PM went against 90% of his own population for no reason? However, these things don't go unnoticed and that's why Americas image has suffered a sewere blow.

Do you walk around giving your friends ultimatums all the time? No you don't because then you would soon be out of friends.

Hornet57
04-15-2004, 10:37 AM
Livoff wrote:

But the US puts pressure on allies that don't agree with them. Do you think that the Spanish PM went against 90% of his own population for no reason? However, these things don't go unnoticed and that's why Americas image has suffered a sewere blow.

What pressure did we put on Tony Blair?
I believe his job was and is questionable also, but he decided to go for it. Look you can take what you hear and agree with it I dont. Bush may offer some insentives but that is how the world works my friend. You just dont like it because Bush is doing it.

Do you walk around giving your friends ultimatums all the time? No you don't because then you would soon be out of friends.

Well if my friends don't help me when I need them why should i stick my *** out for them?

My father told me this once. "One hand washes the other and they both wash the face".

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

[This message was edited by Hornet57 on Fri April 16 2004 at 04:03 AM.]

Demon_Mustang
04-16-2004, 12:41 AM
While I agree that bringing Kerry into this is irrelevant, bringing Clinton into is isn't. Clinton had many chances to take care of Osama Bin Laden, and yes he was one of the top wanted men at the time. Yet Clinton neglected his duties and let him go multiple times. Some would say that if he had done his job, 9/11 would not have happened.

By the time Bush was in office, the plan for 9/11 was already on the go, and it was a bit too late for Bush to have prevented it even if he would have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden before it happened.

But regarding how Bush treated the issue before hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he did underestimate Osama Bin Laden, but I highly doubt that Bush would have let Bin Laden go if we had him within our grasp like we did multiple times during the Clinton administration.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 04:58 AM
I just find the 9/11 commission a big joke, since we are broadcasting it all over the world to see what our weaknesses are, and giving the terrorists intelligence. How does it help the public knowing every single detail other then trying to change our view of Bush for the upcoming elections? The questions on the Press confrence kinda proves my point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

I am not sure if Clinton could have prevented a 9/11 situation by capturing Bin Ladin but if they really want to get to the bottom of this, Clinton and Gore should be sitting in front of the commission answering some tough questions.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-16-2004, 07:01 AM
I have changed my mind that it might be relevant to bring in Clinton in the hearing. It's basically a question of the scope of the hearing. On the other hand, they haven't included Bush personally in the hearing, right? He had a press conference by himself besides the hearing if I got things right.

So, it seems that the scope of the hearing is the current and former security/intelligence cummunity and not Bush and/or Clinton.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What pressure did we put on Tony Blair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much. I wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...the US puts pressure on allies that don't agree with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

UK pretty much agreed with the US, so I'm not talking about them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You just dont like it because Bush is doing it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on, you know me better than that. You know that I'm able to differ between the statements and the person. Heck, I even agree on some things you say sometimes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Micaelis
04-16-2004, 07:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:

-While I agree that bringing Kerry into this is irrelevant, bringing Clinton into is isn't. Clinton had many chances to take care of Osama Bin Laden, and yes he was one of the top wanted men at the time. Yet Clinton neglected his duties and let him go multiple times. Some would say that if he had done his job, 9/11 would not have happened.-



Interesting. Are you saying its a fact that Clinton had Osama in his hands but chose to let him go free?
Im not aware of any situations where the US "owned" Osama like that, you see.

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:

On the other hand, they haven't included Bush personally in the hearing, right? He had a press conference by himself besides the hearing if I got things right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush and Chaney will be sitting on the hearing soon, although private hearings as Clinton and maybe Gore should be. I dont think a public hearing serves any purpose other then political.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What pressure did we put on Tony Blair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much. I wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...the US puts pressure on allies that don't agree with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bad didnt read it carefully.
I appologize http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Interesting. Are you saying its a fact that Clinton had Osama in his hands but chose to let him go free?
Im not aware of any situations where the US "owned" Osama like that, you see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly what Demon is saying Micaelis.
The Sudanese government offered UBL on a perverbial platter and Clinton said thanks but no thanks and pointed them toward the Saudis.
To his defense I have to admit it's kinda hard to think straight when you have a lady on her knees in front of you.

In any case I dont think that Clinton or anyone could have stopped a plot like 9/11, but we'll never know for sure.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Cowanchicken
04-16-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:

-While I agree that bringing Kerry into this is irrelevant, bringing Clinton into is isn't. Clinton had many chances to take care of Osama Bin Laden, and yes he was one of the top wanted men at the time. Yet Clinton neglected his duties and let him go multiple times. Some would say that if he had done his job, 9/11 would not have happened.-



Interesting. Are you saying its a fact that Clinton had Osama in his hands but chose to let him go free?
Im not aware of any situations where the US "owned" Osama like that, you see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He could have. It was a failure on both administration's parts. Clearly the Bush Admin didn't decide to do much in the months between they were in office and 9/11. Didn't he have about 8 months? That's certainly enough to beef up airport security.

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cowanchicken:

He could have. It was a failure on both administration's parts. Clearly the Bush Admin didn't decide to do much in the months between they were in office and 9/11. Didn't he have about 8 months? That's certainly enough to beef up airport security.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton had 8 years. What do you suppose the people would be saying if he decided to make such stricked security checks like we have now, like checking shoes, old ladies, profiling Arabs etc. people waiting for hours flights beeing canceled? Just take a look how people complain now when we go on orange alert and nothing happens. Why can't people like you admit that before an incident like 9/11 it would have been impossible for any President to act on the non-specific information he had? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-16-2004, 09:30 AM
Well, I'll leave Monica Lewinsky out of this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to the US a number of times under Clinton's administration. Their offer was turned down because the US counter terrorism efforts were using our legal system (Not as a war). Clinton refused Bin Laden because, in his own words, "we didn't have anything to charge him with." In other words, the US government's policy was to treat him as though he though he was a common criminal, not as though he was an international terrorist.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Micaelis
04-16-2004, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hornet57:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Interesting. Are you saying its a fact that Clinton had Osama in his hands but chose to let him go free?
Im not aware of any situations where the US "owned" Osama like that, you see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly what Demon is saying Micaelis.
The Sudanese government offered UBL on a perverbial platter and Clinton said thanks but no thanks and pointed them toward the Saudis.
To his defense I have to admit it's kinda hard to think straight when you have a lady on her knees in front of you.

In any case I dont think that Clinton or anyone could have stopped a plot like 9/11, but we'll never know for sure.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Its getting really boring now Hornet57.

Sudan`s president offered Saudi intelligence Osama back in 1996, if the Saudi`s would promise not to prosecute Osama. The Saudi`s said they could only decline the offer since they wanted Osama put on trial. Then the Saudi`s gave the Clinton administration the info about the deal. Clinton wanted Osama prosecuted as well so the offer was not really worth a helluva lot to him either.
Clinton would have to explain why USA was suddenly working closely together with Sudan and harboring a known terrorist, keeping him free of charges.
This was of course before 9/11, today the US would probably invade Sudan if US learned that Osama was there.

Could be funny if Osama suddenly appeared inside China.

Cowanchicken
04-16-2004, 09:43 AM
YOu know Hornet, that's a good point. Unless you've got something really big happening on US soil, there really isn't much drastic action you can take that's not going to be unpopular with the people. I guess it goes for just about any pre-9/11 president as well though. There simply just wasn't enough public support in combatting terrorist because it didn't really seem a like a serious threat to the US, until the two tallest buildings in the US fell on the largest city in the US.

Although, there are other things the Admins (Bush and Clinton) could have done, like at least getting rid of the sleeper cells within the United States.

And to answer the original question, I think the commission is pretty useful. There may be a little but of politics involved, but the committee has both republicans and democrats asking the questions.

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Could be funny if Osama suddenly appeared inside China.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least if Usama was to try and hide in China, It should'nt be too hard picking him out in a crowd.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cowanchicken:
YOu know Hornet, that's a good point. Unless you've got something really big happening on US soil, there really isn't much drastic action you can take that's not going to be unpopular with the people. I guess it goes for just about any pre-9/11 president as well though. There simply just wasn't enough public support in combatting terrorist because it didn't really seem a like a serious threat to the US, until the two tallest buildings in the US fell on the largest city in the US.

That is why some people call it a "wake up call"
but there was a few times that Clinton could have done something i.e after the SS Cole attack

Although, there are other things the Admins (Bush and Clinton) could have done, like at least getting rid of the sleeper cells within the United States.

How's that with an alarm clock? think about it.
Even After 9/11,the patriot act was suppose to do just that, but look how much people started to complain and the names they called the Attorney General for even thinking of implementing something like the patriot act.

We can all sit around and try to figure out who should have done when we know what we are facing and still expect our President to protect us whith one hand tied behind his back.
And everyone is worried how we look to the Europeans and the Candadians it seems.

[quote]
And to answer the original question, I think the commission is pretty useful. There may be a little but of politics involved, but the committee has both republicans and democrats asking the questions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but it would be fair to have a Democrat to ask some questions to also dont you think?
Then the commission would be standing on 4 legs.
And I still believe that there is no reason for the commission hearing to be made public unless there is a definite proof of negligence

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

[This message was edited by Hornet57 on Fri April 16 2004 at 11:11 AM.]

MDS_Geist
04-16-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:
Could be funny if Osama suddenly appeared inside China.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chinese have no love for Muslim terrorists and minimal concern for collateral damage. He would be taken and interrogated prior to being executed.

The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service.

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 12:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MDS_Geist:

The Chinese have no love for Muslim terrorists and minimal concern for collateral damage. He would be taken and interrogated prior to being executed.
QUOTE]

Well just wait until MNG gets through with them
They'll think twice about any collateral damage to take out an International Terrorist. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Micaelis
04-16-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hornet57:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Could be funny if Osama suddenly appeared inside China.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least if Usama was to try and hide in China, It should'nt be too hard picking him out in a crowd.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Im glad thats all you can find to disagree with in my last post.
I just love to be your private little intelligence gathering bureau http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

Hornet57
04-16-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Im glad thats all you can find to disagree with in my last post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was suppose to be a joke....moron, ok maybe a bad joke but a joke which went over your small head http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

maybe if you would have pointed out something factual I would have bothered to answer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just love to be your private little intelligence gathering bureau <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You couldnt even shine my shoes little one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-16-2004, 01:53 PM
Hornet, he's way too stupid to understand jokes. Don't waste your time.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Micaelis
04-16-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hornet57:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:

Im glad thats all you can find to disagree with in my last post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was suppose to be a joke....moron, ok maybe a bad joke but a joke which went over your small head http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

maybe if you would have pointed out something factual I would have bothered to answer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just love to be your private little intelligence gathering bureau <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You couldnt even shine my shoes little one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I dident really coment on you trying to be funny.
I said I was glad to correct you once again and glad that you dident object to it. Furthermore I asked you if you, like Demon Mustang thinks that Clinton had more chances to get his hands on Osama?

All I ask is that you think before you speak. Not to hard when one dont know that much to begin with is it.
Spare me your arrogant jokes, admit your wrong and correct me for once.

[This message was edited by Micaelis on Fri April 16 2004 at 01:43 PM.]

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 04:55 AM
Micaelis wrote:

I said I was glad to correct you once again and glad that you dident object to it. Furthermore I asked you if you, like Demon Mustang thinks that Clinton had more chances to get his hands on Osama?

I would be glad to hear your correction except that you are not correct. The Sudanese government offered UBL to Clinton first, but Clinton didnt think he had anything to charge UBL with, so he pass the offer to the Soudis.
Besides what you say does not make sense (what a surprise eh?) whatsoever. Why would they offer UBL to anyone under the guide not to prosecute him? and if they didnt want him to be prosecuted why offer him in the first place.
I clearly expalained this but like always it went over your very confused mind. Thats what you get when take the word of BBC as the truth.

All I ask is that you think before you speak. Not to hard when one dont know that much to begin with is it.

You first.

Spare me your arrogant jokes, admit your wrong and correct me for once.

Maybe you should read what your write sometimes
why would I admit I am wrong and then correct you for being wrong. Can you now see how stupid your statements are?

BTW, I did correct you at the begening of this but you chose to try and correct me with your BS

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 07:51 AM
Micaelis,

Hornet is right that your statement about Bin Laden and the Sudanese is logically incoherent. It also contradicted every other source I've ever heard discuss the topic including Clinton himself.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 08:41 AM
Thor,

I recently heard a tape of Clinton admiting what I said on an interview a while back and the tape was played back on the Sean Hannity radio program, since Clinton recently stated that he had no recollection about not taking the offer from the Sudanese. I wonder if anyone else heard it. From the Horses mouth so to speak.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 08:46 AM
The one I heard was quite scratchy (but definitely sounded like Bill) and he said that they couldn't take him because they didn't have the case to press charges. It shouldn't surprise everyone that he'll say one thing at one time and another when it's convenient (he made a career out of it, after all). The tape sounded like it was from a conversation, not an interview, it was something a Boston radio show host that we get up here played a few times.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Micaelis
04-17-2004, 08:48 AM
Come on Hornet57. Your living in denial.

You thought the rebels in Iraq consisted of nomore than 2000- 3000 rebels. You said so. I informed you that this number might be underestimating the rebels. Moqtadr Sadr's militia alone is believed to be on 10.000 men in arms. Falluja is taking up at least 2500 marines right now. Your number was wishful thinking.


You also think Moqtadr Sadr lives in Falluja. Its a good thing you dont command the soldiers in Iraq since you then would send all your troops to Falluja instead of Najaf, where Sadr actually lives and makes his stand. Sunni militans occupy Falluja.
Its the third time I tell you this. Its obvious you dont really know who`s fighting who in Iraq.

Oh by the way, If Moqtadr Sadr is fighting for Saddam, and I say that because according to you all rebels are either foreing terrorists or Saddam loyal men, why dont Sadr ask for the release of Saddam?
Or why doesent the Sunni militans or anyone else ask for that?
And why is it that the hostages taken in Iraq now are being used to get some rebels back the US captured and not being used to try and get some of the former leaders back?


On the 15 November 2002 Rumsfeld said this: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Your wrong in saying the American administration did not try to create the illusion that "liberating" Iraq would be done in short time and that your actions and following short occupation would be well recieved by the Iraqis.
On many occations when the US war propaganda machine was started up, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell and so on, said the fighting would be over quick and the occupation of Iraq would only last a couple of months. In fact the fighting never stopped. It has steadily escalated to the level we are witnessing today and theres a good chance it gets worse.

While the Bush administration was blowing fear mixed with sunshine up your butt, you could at the same time read different point of wiews in big American newspapers: "Despite stated Bush administration optimism about a short war in Iraq, should it happen, there are those with immense experience in such matters inside the Pentagon who fear that it'll end with the army being bogged down in Iraq, in part because, for all its assembled military muscle, the US battle plan has too few troops."

There were people inside the US who predicted the scenario that now faces the US. They was in strong opposition to Bush, infact they was almost called traitors for not being extremely patriotic. But it looks like they was right.
Its been way more than 5 months now and there is nothing to indicate that the fighting is over or that the US troops can come home anytime soon.
Did you see that comming?

You persist on connecting Saddam with Osama and 9/11. On what do you base that? No one in your country that can call themselfs experts on the matter will say Saddam was connected to Saddam. How the hell can you do it then???


When you say alJazzera is one sided and FOX is not, on what do you base that? I dident think you watched alJazzera yet alone that you speake their laungage.


You recently discovered, when I told you, that the Iraqi people have tried to kill Saddam on several occasions in the past. Untill I told you, you was apparently totally ignorant of that fact. Which was why your dished the Iraqis for "not standing up to Saddam themselfs."
When I told you the Iraqis actually had tried to kill Saddam this was your response: "A couple of guys trying to take out Saddam is useless."
Fact is, they did kill Saddam on one occation only it turned out to be one of his doubles.
You dont know that much and it shows in your ignorant and arrogant approach to people and their opinions.


You say that the Sudanese government offered UBL on a perverbial platter and Clinton said thanks but no thanks and pointed them toward the Saudis but thats not exactly what happened. The president of Sudan first approached Saudi arabia and offered the deal to them or a chance to mediate a deal between Sudan and the US. Through SA Clinton was advised.
Then you deny that Sudan demanded that for Osama to be turned over - they dident have him in custody they only promised to take him into custody and turn him over- US or SA would have to promise that he would not get prosecuted. Osama arrived in Sudan in 1991 and have since then invested a lot of money in the country and helped planned their new infrastructure. He is on all levels in society, even on the highst levels, very well liked. So there was little reason for them to turn Osama over. In 1996 Osama was not yet a terrorist mastermind. In 1998 Osama bombed the two American embassies in east Africa and thereby made himself number one on the Americans most wanted list for the first time.
Clinton could not agree to the no prosecution of Osama so he rejected the offer. On the other hand Clinton put so much pressure on Sudan that Osama eventually had to flee to Afghanistan.

Is this incident something you would use to put blame on Clinton for 9/11? Why did you bring it up? Did Clinton "miss" other opportunities to get Osama?


Another of your incompetent questions:
"O.k then where was the UN at the time? where were France, Germany, Russia and all these countries that are so willing to blame the US for that mistake? Where was ol Al Jazzera and BBC? What did they do about it?"

The answer to that is that while US was a strong ally and an active and helpful partner to Saddam the countries that are so willing to blame the US for that mistake got several UN resolutions made against the partnership between the US and Saddam, specifically against the use of illegal weapons (chem) and abuses of human rights and such.
Its also during this period of time Saddam is believed to have made the biggest portion of his mass graves.
After Saddam gassed the kurds, the US gave him the means to start producing his own chemical and biological gifts from hell. Why? Because the US wasent that kean on him using their weapons when it came to bio or chem. to kill his enemies with.
So know you now that.


On what do you base the assumption that the vast majority of Iraqis welcome the Americans?
Why do you think the Iraqis is not split over the dillema of war and occupation with American troops like other countries around the world is?
Do you have any facts that can back you up answering who the Iraqis respect and will follow now?
For how long do you think Iraq will allow US troops in its country and for how long do you think Iraq will need US troops there?

Do you remember this statement of yours:
"Could it be that we are civilized people and are there to help destroy their true enemy within?"

You made me laugh, I`ll give you that. Seriously, what exactly do you mean with this? A full in depth analyses would be appreciated.



Hornet57, these things are only from the last few days. To say your not wrong is living in denial.
All Im saying is that you can spare me your arrogant ignorant one sided childish jokes, admit it when your wrong and maybe use the time gained to require knowledge so that one day, you will be able to correct me. Then talking to you would be worth something.

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 08:51 AM
Micaelis I wouldn't advise telling people what they think. What may be true at one point in time is subject to change. Do you expect the number of people fighting us to remain constant?

btw Al Jazeera has (or had at one time since hackers kept wrecking it) and English version of their website. I've heard they also have English broadcasts on satellite but that may not be true.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Micaelis
04-17-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thoramir:
Micaelis,

Hornet is right that your statement about Bin Laden and the Sudanese is logically incoherent. It also contradicted every other source I've ever heard discuss the topic including Clinton himself.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



If your so eager to correct me why dont you help Hornet with my reply to him. He misinterpret and misunderstand constantly so as a mate you would be expected to help out and at least give him the occational correction. But no, you rather want to be an ... and support his ignorance. He needs a hand a tad more than I do. Your a "fine" friend.

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 08:56 AM
Because I think you're an absolute waste of space and don't respect you enough to give you the ****ing time of day let alone finish reading your garbage. No one has been saying that we have been fighting an (estimated) 2000-3000 fighters since last summer. Their are obviously more people fighting us now at present then there have been in the past.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Micaelis
04-17-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thoramir:
Because I think you're an absolute waste of space and don't respect you enough to give you the ****ing time of day let alone finish reading your garbage. No one has been saying that we have been fighting an (estimated) 2000-3000 fighters since last summer. Their are obviously more people fighting us now at present then there have been in the past.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Thank youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Now go tell Hornet57.

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 09:10 AM
As far as I know he hasn't given any estimate on the number of people fighting us in at least 5 months and I *think* I've read all of his posts. If I've missed one feel free to point it out, but since the number of people fighting us is of minor importance and I don't particularly know the numbers. I know it has been higher than last summer's estimates because for one we have killed more fighters (still mostly foreign) than 2000-3000 since that time.

Edit: BTW, what the hell do you think I am, Hornet's babysitter? If anyone needs help it's that idiot MNG, he seems to take the Tehran Times as gospel truth.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Micaelis:
Come on Hornet57. Your living in denial.

You thought the rebels in Iraq consisted of nomore than 2000- 3000 rebels. You said so. I informed you that this number might be underestimating the rebels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this is what you are talking about?

Michaelis wrote: on the Iraq loosing the Intelligence war thread.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Think of the latest week of insurgence in Iraq. It takes more than 2000-3000 rebels to create the firepower needed to make the coallition forces pull back from various places around the country. Look at how many rebels the coallition have already reported to be killed in the battles and yet the rebels still offer the same level of resistance. I honestly think that you have ignored the human resource in Iraq when it comes to resistance against the coallition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My answer to that one was:

"No I believe that is the difficulty of telling apart the rebels with the peace loving Iraqi population. the 2000-3000 rebels means nothing to 2000lb bomb."

Can you point out to me where I said that the rebels consists of no more then 2000-3000 men?
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer or let me refrase that a correct answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You also think Moqtadr Sadr lives in Falluja. Its a good thing you dont command the soldiers in Iraq since you then would send all your troops to Falluja instead of Najaf,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a lie, becauae I have no idea where Sadr lives, I also have no idea where Usama lives becaue if I did I would be a very rich man. As far as me being a commander in Iraq. I wouldnt send any men if it was up to me I would send a few hundred bombs and lever the whole damn place you freaking moron.
I guess that is why I am not a commander http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its the third time I tell you this. Its obvious you dont really know who`s fighting who in Iraq.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no my confused European friend, what is obvious is that you dont know your *** from your elbow.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh by the way, If Moqtadr Sadr is fighting for Saddam, and I say that because according to you all rebels are either foreing terrorists or Saddam loyal men, why dont Sadr ask for the release of Saddam?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I say fighting for Saddam anyone with half a brain would understand that I mean for his stronghold because they know full well that Saddam would never see the light of day again..ever and certainly not be released in exchange for anyone.The rebels even know that but you obviously are clueless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And why is it that the hostages taken in Iraq now are being used to get some rebels back the US captured and not being used to try and get some of the former leaders back?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can swear I must be talking with a 13 year old. There will be no negotiating with the enemy fool.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
On the 15 November 2002 Rumsfeld said this: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you should write a letter to Rumsfeld and tell him about it. I didnt say how long it will take.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Your wrong in saying the American administration did not try to create the illusion that "liberating" Iraq would be done in short time and that your actions and following short occupation would be well recieved by the Iraqis.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know I am wrong when it is not over yet......and what is a short time to you may not be a short time to me considering the complexity of the situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
On many occations when the US war propaganda machine was started up, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell and so on, said the fighting would be over quick and the occupation of Iraq would only last a couple of months. In fact the fighting never stopped. It has steadily escalated to the level we are witnessing today and theres a good chance it gets worse.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, i can see you are running out of things to say and keep repeating the same crap over and over. I already answered you on this same question. Instead of tiring your fingers typing the same question go back and re read all the posts you have made and check to see my answer to this very same question. You dont get points for writting long threats here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
While the Bush administration was blowing fear mixed with sunshine up your butt, you could at the same time read different point of wiews in big American newspapers: "Despite stated Bush administration optimism about a short war in Iraq, should it happen, there are those with immense experience in such matters inside the Pentagon who fear that it'll end with the army being bogged down in Iraq, in part because, for all its assembled military muscle, the US battle plan has too few troops."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a matter of the president and his advisers to decide and I am not about to second guess my president. And neither should you since its not even your business quite frankly.
You just like to practice your typing skills and repeat the propaganda you get from News agencies like BBC, Mehr and MNG daily reports.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There were people inside the US who predicted the scenario that now faces the US. They was in strong opposition to Bush, infact they was almost called traitors for not being extremely patriotic. But it looks like they was right.
Its been way more than 5 months now and there is nothing to indicate that the fighting is over or that the US troops can come home anytime soon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you dont say, there where people in the US that oppose what the President decided to do?
what a surprise.
Calling the President a Liar and refering to him as Hitler like is not patriotic but idiotic, and it make the US look devided which the Terrorists love to see.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did you see that comming?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasnt looking for it
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You persist on connecting Saddam with Osama and 9/11. On what do you base that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I persist that you are dillusional but as far as Saddam and Usama and 9/11 I suspect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No one in your country that can call themselfs experts on the matter will say Saddam was connected to Saddam. How the hell can you do it then???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
they say they havent found any direct evidence.
That is not final though.

as for the rest of your pointless thread I will answer when I have a couple of hours to waste

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

[This message was edited by Hornet57 on Sat April 17 2004 at 10:45 AM.]

[This message was edited by Hornet57 on Sat April 17 2004 at 10:46 AM.]

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 11:16 AM
Micaelis you are such a moron, that's not what Hornet was implying at all.


On the 15 November 2002 Rumsfeld said this: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.

Well, that's nice is there anything resembling a context to that? It certainly didn't take that long to taker over and if he was speaking about invasion not occupation then that's a different matter altogether.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-17-2004, 12:13 PM
Dammit Micaelis!

It's impressive to see you slap Hornet and Thoramir around like that whilst fighting arrogance with logic.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Thor and Hornet, there is a clear terndency in your posts. When somebody points out a statement where you could be wrong, you only know one response which is rudeness and personal attacks. I am sure your response to this post will be another example of that.

[This message was edited by Livoff on Sat April 17 2004 at 11:24 AM.]

Gandalf_is_dead
04-17-2004, 12:50 PM
Exactly Livoff. Get used to it.
A couple of infatile intellects with puffed out chests and ready salutes who like to throw around the word moron.
Comic ironic iconics.

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:
Dammit Micaelis!

It's impressive to see you slap Hornet and Thoramir around like that whilst fighting arrogance with logic.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Thor and Hornet, there is a clear terndency in your posts. When somebody points out a statement where you could be wrong, you only know one response which is rudeness and personal attacks. I am sure your response to this post will be another example of that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not surprised with your defense of your homeboy there Livoff, but lets get serious here.

Im not surprised that you are impressed by sissy slaps in a boxing match with arrogance vs logic, but can you tell me exactly at what point Thor and I where wrong?

One question also about Arogance since you are European and all, what exactly is arrogant to you. When someone does not believe the sources you bring to the table?

And if you want to talk about rude maybe you should go back a few posts and see who started the Rude comments first. I have repeatedly said that if I see a logical response and not a response aimed at the President just because the moron who made the response does not like Bush for what ever his warped mind might think, then I will respond in a non rude way also, i.e Leeps post reasoning with me as to why he disagrees with me. We both understand we can agree to disagree and remain civil.

But you see I know Europeans since I was one and my Brother who moved back to Europe also thinks in the same lines as you and dispite of him being older then me I still call him a Liberal Moron. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif but I still love the knucklehead.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gandalf_is_dead:
Exactly Livoff. Get used to it.
A couple of infatile intellects with puffed out chests and ready salutes who like to throw around the word moron.
Comic ironic iconics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and now a word for the Liberal that is ashamed to be called a Liberal.......I wonder why.
Just because you can dot your i's and cross your tees maybe have a better vocabulary does not make you correct my dearly departed friend.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-17-2004, 02:16 PM
Hornet, this is the perfect example of how brains conquers arrogance:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:Originally posted by Thoramir:
Because I think you're an absolute waste of space and don't respect you enough to give you the ****ing time of day let alone finish reading your garbage. No one has been saying that we have been fighting an (estimated) 2000-3000 fighters since last summer. Their are obviously more people fighting us now at present then there have been in the past.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you
Now go tell Hornet57.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 02:28 PM
Livoff,

I bet you trip and fall down a lot when you walk, since your brain gets confused as to which leg moves next.....right?

Do me a favor and go get a clue and then come back.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-17-2004, 02:31 PM
Well, you demonstrate my point pretty good. Count the number of times you and Thoramir have been directly offensive in this thread compared to, for example me and Micaelis. That is apparently the difference between the american and european way of reasoning.

Like we talked about in the other thread, this is also the difference between US and UK troops in Iraq. When the US troops get shot to pieces for that attitude, they can only respond with more arrogance.

[This message was edited by Livoff on Sat April 17 2004 at 01:54 PM.]

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 02:54 PM
Dude, they seriously have bigger concerns that that attitude. It took me nearly six months of Euro-whining before I decided these guys weren't worth wasting my brain cells on and I might as well just tell them what I think of them.

Ooh, I invented a new word! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Edit: you might say Americans have the good sense to when debating is unproductive or as I would put it: We know when to just shut up already. These guys are like the annoying kid at school that won't leave you alone but you try to be polite to them until you just can't take it anymore.]

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-17-2004, 03:05 PM
I know that there are also other reasons for the difference in casualties. Basra is not the Sunni triangle, but the US troops should definately work on their attitude for their own good.

Regarding your second point:
What can I say? It takes more than a star spangled banner in slow motion on TV to persuade europeans to go to war. Give us a reason and we'll be there just as fast as in Gulf War I and Afghanistan.

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 03:11 PM
If you think my decision to support this war has anything to do with the "Star Spangled Banner" you've been smoking to much crack. My attitude has been a response, that's right. A RE-ACT-ION. I'm typically civil to people who haven't been harrassing me for six months.

BTW don't give me this rational reason to go to war Europe pulled the US into almost every war it has been involved in.
http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Livoff
04-17-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW don't give me this rational reason to go to war Europe pulled the US into almost every war it has been involved in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't want reasons to go to war? Although I think it's a pretty scary thought, it seems to be consistent with current US foreign policy.

btw, I know this really cool homepage:
Europe pulls poor innocent US into all of their wars (http://www.multied.com/wars.html)

Thoramir
04-17-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You don't want reasons to go to war? Although I think it's a pretty scary thought, it seems to be consistent with current US foreign policy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you're going to misinterpret what I said I'll misinterpret your question. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Of course, I don't want reasons to go to war. If I don't have a reason to go, then I'm not going! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Funny webpage, I should've specified that I was making a joke.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Hornet57
04-17-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:
I know that there are also other reasons for the difference in casualties. Basra is not the Sunni triangle, but the US troops should definately work on their attitude for their own good.

Regarding your second point:
What can I say? It takes more than a star spangled banner in slow motion on TV to persuade europeans to go to war. Give us a reason and we'll be there just as fast as in Gulf War I and Afghanistan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Livoff, you want to know what the reasons for the US casualties are.
The will to minimize civilian casualties. or else Basra and many cities would have been parking lots by now.

Framce did'nt seem to mind the Star Spangled Banner in any motion when we were helping them kick the Germans (friendly Europeans) out of their land.

and to add one more thing.
If the Europeans don't agree with the war then stay out but shut up about it and don't try to make the US as the bad guy here because it is clearly not the case.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

[This message was edited by Hornet57 on Sun April 18 2004 at 03:24 AM.]

Demon_Mustang
04-17-2004, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cowanchicken:
He could have. It was a failure on both administration's parts. Clearly the Bush Admin didn't decide to do much in the months between they were in office and 9/11. Didn't he have about 8 months? That's certainly enough to beef up airport security.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cow, I completely agree, and I've stated this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bush, like every other president, underestimated, or at least didn't have their priorities in the exact correct order, prior to 9/11.

But honestly, I did not really expect Clinton, or anyone else to do all the security measures like we do now prior to 9/11. However, I've always thought that we SHOULD have, but I know it's a huge financial burden and a big "privacy" issue with Americans unless we have a very good reason. So I didn't really expect it.

But the fact is, like Reagan, I believe that Bush would not have neglected to take Bin Laden in if we had as many chances at him prior to 9/11 as Clinton did.

And Micaelis, your "ignorance" of the times Clinton had Bin Laden in his grasp is not at all surprising. The instance Hornet stated is indeed incredible, but it's not the only time. There was another time when we had Bin Laden's location and had men and gunships within range to intercept, but we needed confirmation from Clinton. He first made himself completely unavailable for a while, then when they were able to contact him, he kept insisting on meeting with someone to "talk" about it more before making the decision (mind you, they had a window of opportunity of about 2 hours, and Clinton was informed of this). So a planned meeting with the foreign governments we were working with would have been impossible within that time frame. And everytime they tried to get an answer from him, he kept insisting that he had some time to discuss it with his staff. And he let it sit until that window of opportunity had closed and they had to send their troops home. They lost track of him after that.

Funny isn't it? Oh yes, let's not forget the time he refused to give an answer to send air support to Northern Iraq to help the Kurds that were being illegally engaged by an illegal Iraqi offensive because he was "busy" watching a golf game...

BTW, the Kurdish commander that was our "ally" was killed in that offensive. I'm surprised they kind of trusted us with this war on Iraq, they could have assumed that we would leave their arses blowing in the wind when the crap hit the fan like we did that last time. Perhaps they knew that Bush wouldn't pansy out like Clinton did, who knows.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Hornet57
04-18-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:
Well, you demonstrate my point pretty good. Count the number of times you and Thoramir have been directly offensive in this thread compared to, for example me and Micaelis. That is apparently the difference between the american and european way of reasoning.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Livoff, this goes beyond this thread. This goes from the beginning of the conflict (Iraq)starting with Insults on our president and our beliefes that he is doing the right thing. You Europeans and your "righteous" thinking have directly and indirectly hurled insults but when you get hit back with the same, you whine like a little sissy.
You are how old? about 16 or so? since you dont have a drivers licence I would think you're not much older but yet you come off like you know who is wrong and who is right with such a defiance and accusing our president with stupidity. Now that my young friend is Arrogance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Like we talked about in the other thread, this is also the difference between US and UK troops in Iraq. When the US troops get shot to pieces for that attitude, they can only respond with more arrogance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Newsflash to Livoff, the US troops get shot because the enemy dont want us bringing freedom to Iraq because they have other plans.

Fighting back is not arrogance. I bet you would love to see us pack our guns and leave wouldn't you?
But we are not French http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ok that was arrogance.

BTW, Thor and I are not married to each other we have our own opinions, that happen to be correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Demon_Mustang
04-18-2004, 12:26 PM
I'm not going to argue with Livoff on this one. I know a lot of people in the military, and although there are a great many really intelligent people, there are a lot of these new recruits that are young, right out of highschool. Especially in the Marines, those new recruits are as ghetto and low class as they come. They are crude, rude, and I got worried when I saw that we have the likes of them going there to represent our country.

I'm not saying anything against the Marines, the older people in the Marines are completely fine and high class and potent fighting machines, but for some odd reason, the Marines have attracted a lot of these wannabe badass morons coming out of highschool. I see a lot of them in the Army too, but I know a lot of the ones that went into the Marines personally, so I can better judge their character than the ones I've only met that are in the Army.

I wouldn't say Europeans because there are some that are probably worse than we are, but the British people are generally more polite than we are from my personal experience. I haven't been there recently, but the ones I know here are just the sweetest people you'll meet. So it seems as if it's a difference in our cultures.

(Sorry if anything I've said might be crude or insensitive, this is a little rushed.)

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Livoff
04-18-2004, 01:43 PM
Yes there are some in europe that are way worse than the worst of the US troopers, for example in the Balkans. Luckily, they are too tied up in their own mess to go and spread their havoc in other parts of the world http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm not sure how countries like Poland and Hungary are doing in Irag, but I think they've had very few caualties and are doing pretty well.

Hornet, you make the mistake of using your own references when judging others. If I lived in the US I would have gotten my license when I was 16. I live in a very small country which consists mostly of small islands. Although we have amongst the highest living standards in the world, car prices and gas prices are high here, mostly due to taxation for environmental reasons. On the other hand we have among the best public transportation there is anywhere. Many young people will therefore get their license when they get their first paycheck after graduation or even later, when the need for a car arises. Only a fool would judge a persons mental state by their lack of drivers license in that situation.

[This message was edited by Livoff on Sun April 18 2004 at 12:55 PM.]

Demon_Mustang
04-18-2004, 02:04 PM
This might seem off-topic, but it's a response to what Livoff said about taxation for environmental reasons.

For the most part, catalytic convertors and other environmental factors in today's cars make them so efficient that they barely emit anything in terms of environmental pollutants. Whether a car is "low emissions" or not is all relative to each other. It's a fact that animals such as cows emit more pollutants in their "gas" than cars do. California actually got it's smog and pollution during the time when most traffic was horse-drawn carriages and a lot from older cars.

Here's a neat little factoid, a Ford Taurus driving from Washington DC to New York will emit less pollutants than a 1 cylinder lawn mower when you mow your lawn. All thanks to the catalytic converter.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Hornet57
04-18-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Livoff:

Hornet, you make the mistake of using your own references when judging others. If I lived in the US I would have gotten my license when I was 16. I live in a very small country which consists mostly of small islands. Although we have amongst the highest living standards in the world, car prices and gas prices are high here, mostly due to taxation for environmental reasons. On the other hand we have among the best public transportation there is anywhere. Many young people will therefore get their license when they get their first paycheck after graduation or even later, when the need for a car arises. Only a fool would judge a persons mental state by their lack of drivers license in that situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you just call me a fool? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Well when I am wrong I always appologize, but when called a fool you can understand my shock.
Especially from a known fool.

First of all idiot boy, I didnt judge your mental state because of you lack of obtainig a drivers license I simply thought (since you didnt tall me where the hell your are from) that you where not of a legal age to obtain one.
So I figure you must be around 16 or so. And I just said that a 16 year old would not have enough worldly experience to be so damn sure of US politics other then what he hears from his elders.

So what is the transportation like at the Islands.....donkeys? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-18-2004, 03:56 PM
LOL! Please re-read my post quoted within your post and you will find all your answers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I am sorry that I called you a fool. What I meant was that it is foolish to jump to conclusions on my personal life in Europe based on your daily life in the US. I am sure that you agree with me on that one.

[This message was edited by Livoff on Sun April 18 2004 at 03:07 PM.]

Hornet57
04-18-2004, 04:42 PM
LoL, I did read your post quoted within my post and I understand that you are older then I thought your where but like I explained at the time I refer to you as young since you where not old enough to have a licence I didnt know where you where from at that time.
I was going to appologize when I read you explanation but being called a fool didnt motivate me to do that. Any way I too apologize for going off on you and calling you an idiot boy.
I should have just called you an idiot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif j/k man j/k.

I think all the hostility with our previous debates is getting out of hand I guess.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Livoff
04-18-2004, 04:48 PM
I ment your question about the donkeys...

Cowanchicken
04-19-2004, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:
I'm not going to argue with Livoff on this one. I know a lot of people in the military, and although there are a great many really intelligent people, there are a lot of these new recruits that are young, right out of highschool. Especially in the Marines, those new recruits are as ghetto and low class as they come. They are crude, rude, and I got worried when I saw that we have the likes of them going there to represent our country.

I'm not saying anything against the Marines, the older people in the Marines are completely fine and high class and potent fighting machines, but for some odd reason, the Marines have attracted a lot of these wannabe badass morons coming out of highschool. I see a lot of them in the Army too, but I know a lot of the ones that went into the Marines personally, so I can better judge their character than the ones I've only met that are in the Army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thikn so too. Especially after seeing that video of tankers crushing the Iraqi car after the owners stole some wood. A lot of these guys are on an intellectual level only slightly higher than high school jock types.

Demon_Mustang
04-19-2004, 10:37 AM
Surprisingly highschool jocks might have handled it better. They usually mature up after the military experience, these are mainly the kids that didn't get a huge amount of attention in high school. They were "the average guy" and now they are enjoying being at a position of power over the people.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Hornet57
04-19-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cowanchicken

I thikn so too. Especially after seeing that video of tankers crushing the Iraqi car after the owners stole some wood. A lot of these guys are on an intellectual level only slightly higher than high school jock types.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Idea of that incident was:

How much wood can a woodchuck steal if he has nothing to caryy it in. He should be thankful they waited until he was out of the car.

http://www.forumsigs.com/users/Hornet24811111/SIG2.jpg

Thoramir
04-19-2004, 11:49 AM
Cow I think they were probably under orders to react so harshly regarding looting. There are not enough troops to deter looting when the consequences are too light. I feel bad for the guys who lost their car, but odds are it made them and some of their neighbors think twice about looting again. It's certainly less severe than chopping off hands which is the typical punishment for stealing in Arab countries.

I had a friend in the Navy who was given a medal for ramming a greanpeace boat (under orders) because they were blocking a harbor because his actions were deemed a deterrent to the activists. If the NAVY allowed activists stop them from conducting their operations then activists would be doing it everywhere. It's the same idea.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Demon_Mustang
04-19-2004, 01:51 PM
I don't disagree with punishing the looters, criminals are criminals, I don't care if they are in need or not, and most likely, he wasn't in such dire need like that documentary tried to make it look like. But it's still obvious that the kid enjoyed it and I doubt crushing the car with the tank is an official way of dealing with looters...

About the Navy story, that's good, teaches those murdering idiots for getting in our way. People think they are peaceful protestors, but you must really be naive to believe that.

I remember that footage of the Coast Guard boat running over the woman on the jet ski because she was threatening the lives of Native American whale poachers. She was basically going to ram this little canoe of Indians even after repeated orders to back off by the coast guard (or it was a police vessel), and then they decided they need to act before someone got hurt, so they tried to get in between her and the canoe with their boat, but she was already on her way to the canoe, so instead she got run over by the boat.

She survived, but was injured, and she was saying how she would do it again, blah blah blah, all the while I was thinking to myself what a freakin idiot she was and she got exactly what she deserved for not listening to the multiple warnings.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

Thoramir
04-19-2004, 04:17 PM
If they're doing it legally then it's not poaching. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Demon_Mustang
04-19-2004, 04:44 PM
Oh you know what I mean, they were whale spearing.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)