Flight 93 Movie

[kevdog]

I don't think you can really compare Bush to Hitler although he still really sucks and needs to have his ass kicked for once. Funny how he has flip flopped more than John Kerry. Every time I hear Bush open his mouth and spew out some really bad form of English I get extremely angry. I think he should be stoned to death.

 

[FN FAL]

Hey POOKIE or whatever your name is, you better hope I dont meet you someday.

Godbless America

Godblessed America with 9/11, doink. He must have done it because of all the people cheating on their taxes, not tipping their waitresses enough, cocaine, adultry, child molesting and gays.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

KeroseneSnorter,



So you have justified murdering thousands of innocent civilians ?


Hmmm. How was 9/11 any different? The only thing different was that WE were on the receving side of the sh*tstorm.


From your point of view, it's okay for us to blow up innocent civilians so as long as it's in our best interest.


So, then you must think that terrorists that blow innocent people are not crazies, but indeed, individuals who act in their best interests?


I see a double standard here.

I never said anything about Iraq except that we will be judged by our actions at a future date, and that judgment will largly be based on the outcome.

My problem is the contention that Bush is a Hitler, and the statement that somehow our use of the A-Bomb in 1945 was wrong and evil.

1945 is not 2006, there were no smart bombs and guided missles. By the time we dropped the bombs 50 million people had already been killed. In 45 there was zero way to win the war without airpower.

The civilians that you speak of in the cities were actually war workers. Japan had scattered its munitions plants and weapon factories all over the place in all the large cities in a effort to hide them from our B-29 raids. Hitting the "Military target north of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have done nothing to their arms production, read any good history book of the war and you would know this. In that war there were no civilians, and had there been, there was no way to only target the military, we lacked the technology even if the industrial war producing facilities were not distributed among the civilian population.

The A-Bombs actually saved lives in Japan. Prior to having the A-bomb as an option our only way to slow the arms manufacture was to firebomb the cities. On March 9th and 10th 1945 334 B-29's fire bombed Tokyo....over 100,000 people died in the city. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima put together only killed 105,000. 66,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki.

Had the war remained conventional, the war would have lasted until at least late 1946 (US Army estimate in 1945, documented in its attack plan for the mainland. At a rate of 100,000 dead from the air every two days, plus the deaths from the ground combat for the extra 12 to 18 months of combat it would have taken to defeat the Japanese mainland, Instead of 50 million dead in 6 years, it would have been 55 or 60 million dead in 7 to 8 years.

Trying to compare what is happening now to what was happening then, or trying to justify a position that we should not have used the A-bomb in 45 by using todays combat capabilities is silly and soils the memories of the 50 million that died during that war.

You forget that we could have lost that war very easily, had the Germans not made an incorrect turn early in their nucular research they would have had the bomb long before we could have. History could read very very different indeed except for a small twist of fate and a few scientist making a critical error in Germany, and scientist not making the same error in the US. They had everything else they needed including the ballistic missle delivery system for the a-bomb (V-1 Rocket)

In fact our own early ballistic missles in the 50's and 60's were all based on the V-1 design. We copied it and improved from there. (Those same Germans that designed the V-1 also designed the Saturn 5 rocket that took us the the moon in 69, fella by the name of Vonbraum. sp?)

If Bush were indeed Hitler, currently we would have all muslums in concentration camps systematically sending them to their doom, and we would not even make an attempt to target only military targets as we now do.

Having said that, I personally feel that we should pull the troops out of Iraq. Why? Because they obviously are too caught up in their own petty 2000 year old feud with each other to be any more of a threat. Pull the troops home, let Iraq self destruct into civil war if they want.

However I do not advocate ever leaving ourselves open to another 9/11. If it takes the force of the military to do it....so be it. Like it or not we are a target because of our beliefs....nothing more. If the terrorists had their way, they would exterminate all gays, christians, and anybody else that offended their sensibilities.........much the way Hitler and the Nazi's did. Ironic isn't it, 50 million killed to stop it 1945, and the world screamed that Great Britian and France didn't act to remove Hitler before it came to that, and now we act to remove a person with a proven past of similar acts (Sadaam gassed his own people and committed religous genocide on the Kurds) and we are condemed for taking an active stance against it before it turned into 50 million dead.

Was it right? The only way to really tell would have been to do nothing, but if we were right we avoided another Hitler. If not and we left Iraq today, al we can really be accused of is removing a murdering tyrant from power and trying to establish democracy and freedom to a country.

Time will be our judges, just as it was for Truman and his decision to use the bomb, and of Hitler and Tojo for sending the world into chaos.

At least we did not start this one, and we even ignored the first 10 or so attacks on us before acting...World trade 93, USS Cole, Various embassy bombings, etc. And we are not activly targeting civilians.....if that were the case as some claim and we could flatten cities conventionally in 1945 with nothing more than slow lumbering piston powered aircraft with un guided iron bombs............there would be millions dead by now, not 100,000.

Of course we can always sit around with our thumb up our butt and do nothing and wait for some terrorist to detonate a nuke in New York.............would that appease the protesters I wonder?

 

[pookie]

FlowLow,

I would kick your arse...now go to sleep.

 

[Thurman Merman]

If any of you have a question about the bombs dropped please read, "the last mission." It details a little known coup after the emperor recorded the surrender message. A number of military hierarchy took over the emperor's palace to locate the the recordings and destroy them as to prolong the war. The japanese were fanatical and this was after we dropped two a-bombs on them. One of the reasons they did not succeed was a city wide block out due to a b29 mission on the 14th of august, after the last bomb was dropped on the 9th because they would not commit to a surrender. Even Fuschida, a very respected pilot in the imperial navy who was a huge contributer to the attack on pearl harbor said it was the right thing to do. This can be referenced in, "the first heroes" about the doolittle raid in wwII. one of the survivors who later became a missionary in japan helped convert fushida to christianity had this discussion with him. Fuschida said it not only saved american lives but japanese as well.

When we attacked okinawa, japanese families were hurling themselves off cliffs because of propaganda from the japanese military saying how awful americans would be. Any able body persons were instructed no matter how old or young to resist the invasion with pitch forks or other farm tools once operation olympic and coronet took place(japanese homeland invasion). The many books I read on the Enola Gay and Bockscar detail how none of the crews felt any remorse. Paul Tibbets, the aircraft commander on the enola gay visited hiroshima in an ABC special in the 80's and still said he'd do it again. This was a different time people can not understand. My grandad flew in wwII and gave me insight and that is why I've read so many books on the subject. I know that he i was alive and I am as well due to the use of an atomic weapon. Truman did not like the fact that civiliians were an unfortunate strategy but he knew in the end this was saving lives, it was global warfare that had been started with the germans in '37 and it was time to end. Ask anybody who is alive today who was forced on the battan death march as to was it the right thing to do? Sorry to be so long winded but a very personal subject.

 

[Flyer1015]

I had such a huge post answer, to you Kerosene Snorter, but when I hit submit reply, it asked me to login (I was already logged in, must have timed out). As a result, I lost everything I typed.

So, I'll be brief.


Your justification that the Japanese civlians were not civilians, but were instead war people, is pathetic. It's no better than if Hamas claimed that blowing up Israel civlians is justified because they are military threats, since service is mandatory in the IDF.

About the firebombs VS atomic bombs:

Yes, the firebombs killed about as many (if not more) people as the atomic bombs. But the atomic bombs TO THIS DAY continue to affect people via the radiation effects (esp. cancer). That's an ONGOING punishment to Japanese civilians.

We can argue the what if's all day long. What if we didn't use the nukes? What if what if.

It's not justification enough.

Your argument bascially boils down to the fact that we did it to save the lives of our own soliders (who would have been killed in a ground invasion).

Okay, then by that same argument, you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

It's NOT justification enough.

Like it or not we are a target because of our beliefs....nothing more. If the terrorists had their way, they would exterminate all gays, christians, and anybody else that offended their sensibilities.........much the way Hitler and the Nazi's did.

OMG!

Canada has gays. They have gay marriage. They have Christians. They have NEVER been attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Why?

Canada has not oppressed other nations. Canada does not have an oppressive foreign policy, espcially a predominantly one-sided Israel policy.

The US has had a rather oppressive foreign policy for the middle east. We've been there for quite a few decades now. The CIA has tried to overthrow government forms in the middle east.

We've caused other people to live in oppression. Oppression leads to desperation and extremism.

Make no mistake, we have NOT been attacked because we're "free people."

The Bush administration has thrown the "we were attacked because we are free people" idea at us to get us behind his side.

The Bush administration has successfully played the fear card many times, and will continue to do so.


Gentlemen, 9/11 was finally the culmination of many things, but mainly, the utterly PISS*D OFF people who have been tired of the USA's involvement in the middle east for the past few decades.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Thurman,

Good point about the coup attempt. I was going to mention it but was already very long winded by the time I got to it.

Unfortunatly many of the new generation either have never bothered to read about the war or choose to ignore the lessons that came from it.

Ignoring the past is a sure way to repeat it.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Your justification that the Japanese civlians were not civilians, but were instead war people, is pathetic. It's no better than if Hamas claimed that blowing up Israel civlians is justified because they are military threats, since service is mandatory in the IDF.

About the firebombs VS atomic bombs:

Yes, the firebombs killed about as many (if not more) people as the atomic bombs. But the atomic bombs TO THIS DAY continue to affect people via the radiation effects (esp. cancer). That's an ONGOING punishment to Japanese civilians.

We can argue the what if's all day long. What if we didn't use the nukes? What if what if.

It's not justification enough.

Your argument bascially boils down to the fact that we did it to save the lives of our own soliders (who would have been killed in a ground invasion).

Okay, then by that same argument, you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

It's NOT justification enough.

The part about the civilians in war material production out of their own houses.......read a history book once in a while. It is all there for your consumption.

As to the other, a few numbers to digest.

Japanese killed in WWII: Including the ones killed by the a-bombs

1.75 million military-----350,000 Civilian

Germans Killed in WWII: Not including the jewish deaths from the camps. NO use of Atomic bomb.

3.5 million Military------2 Million Civilian

Difference: 3.4 million people.......that is at least how many more could have been expected to die if we had to do it conventionally. At 105,000 killed in the two nuke strikes, Japan got a bargain.

And you are damn right....we did it to save american sons, of which 291,557 had already died in combat and hundreds of thousands more had been mutilated.

Pushing germany out of their country cost the russians over 7 million people doing it the conventional way.....and that was with us hitting them from the other side as well........we were on our own against Japan.

A few more numbers for you:

Number of civilians and prisoners that Japanese soldiers killed in Nanking China-- 300,000

One city in China, and that was just a small part of Japans activities in the war.........yes 105,000....a bargain considering what they had done to their neighbors.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

OMG!

Canada has gays. They have gay marriage. They have Christians. They have NEVER been attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Why?

Canada has not oppressed other nations. Canada does not have an oppressive foreign policy, espcially a predominantly one-sided Israel policy.

The US has had a rather oppressive foreign policy for the middle east. We've been there for quite a few decades now. The CIA has tried to overthrow government forms in the middle east.

We've caused other people to live in oppression. Oppression leads to desperation and extremism.

Make no mistake, we have NOT been attacked because we're "free people."

The Bush administration has thrown the "we were attacked because we are free people" idea at us to get us behind his side.

The Bush administration has successfully played the fear card many times, and will continue to do so.


Gentlemen, 9/11 was finally the culmination of many things, but mainly, the utterly PISS*D OFF people who have been tired of the USA's involvement in the middle east for the past few decades.

Well when we buy most of their oil, you gotta expect some interest in the region.

What part are they pissed off about? The part where we liberated Kuwait? Or was it the supplying of arms so the Afgans could repel the Soviets? That pretty much covers the last 30 years in the active to semi active combat roles that we had. Maybe they are mad about the effort to contain the Iran/Iraq war and ensure it didn't spread to it's neighbors? Maybe it is the nasty tendency we have to put sanctions against countries that are known human rights violaters. (womens rights, religious persecution, etc) Plus they are none too happy about our affection torward the Jewish state of Isreal, that really chaps their ass.

We are convienant, and up until 2002 we were an easy target. Travel around the middle east some, if you are a white boy, many dislike you, and are not shy about telling you from time to time. When they find out you are american? Most just want your money, then they will make a remark about Bush or whatever. Most are nice though, a few try to start a fight with some of our crews from time to time.........normally in a bar in another non muslum country where Mr. Abdul and his buddies are completly ripped out of their gord from drinking.........and I thought that Islam frowned upon that?

Like I said, we should pack our sh#t and leave Iraq to their own devices, 5 bucks say they would be in a civil war inside 2 weeks. 3 weeks later one or more groups in the region would be screaming for our help and money for aide! A month later they would be sending terrorist after us because we left Iraq with no security!

It is a no win situation for us.

 

[Flyer1015]

The part about the civilians in war material production out of their own houses.......read a history book once in a while. It is all there for your consumption.

As to the other, a few numbers to digest.

Japanese killed in WWII: Including the ones killed by the a-bombs

1.75 million military-----350,000 Civilian

Germans Killed in WWII: Not including the jewish deaths from the camps. NO use of Atomic bomb.

3.5 million Military------2 Million Civilian

Difference: 3.4 million people.......that is at least how many more could have been expected to die if we had to do it conventionally. At 105,000 killed in the two nuke strikes, Japan got a bargain.

And you are dang right....we did it to save american sons, of which 291,557 had already died in combat and hundreds of thousands more had been mutilated.

Pushing germany out of their country cost the russians over 7 million people doing it the conventional way.....and that was with us hitting them from the other side as well........we were on our own against Japan.

A few more numbers for you:

Number of civilians and prisoners that Japanese soldiers killed in Nanking China-- 300,000

One city in China, and that was just a small part of Japans activities in the war.........yes 105,000....a bargain considering what they had done to their neighbors.

Living at home, they were civlians with children who had every right to life. We took that away from them.

We murdered them. Your defense again is spewing the numbers of our soliders that would have died had we not used the nukes.

So surely if you believe that, then you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

I bet if we were on the receiving side of those nukes, your views would have been quiet different. Read the paragraph above about a nuke strike by a terrorist. Is it justified? Well, according to your reasoning, it would be.

What part are they pissed off about? The part where we liberated Kuwait? Or was it the supplying of arms so the Afgans could repel the Soviets? That pretty much covers the last 30 years in the active to semi active combat roles that we had. Maybe they are mad about the effort to contain the Iran/Iraq war and ensure it didn't spread to it's neighbors? Maybe it is the nasty tendency we have to put sanctions against countries that are known human rights violaters. (womens rights, religious persecution, etc) Plus they are none too happy about our affection torward the Jewish state of Isreal, that really chaps their ass.

We helped Kuwait for the SOLE interest of oil fields (oil $). We helped Afghanistan for the SOLE interest of beating our sworn enemy, Russia (the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ring a bell?).
Do NOT think for a second we gave a damn about these people. We acted out of our own interests. The oil in case one, and Russia in case two.

The Saudi Arabia situation is one that has really ticked off bin Laden. The King/Prince monarchy are nothing but puppets of the US government. With our soldiers stationed there, that ensures they (the monarchy) stays in power. Bin Laden knows this.

And yes, while you may just brush it off, the one-sided support for Israel that the US gives is also a major factor that has ticked off people in that region.

No other country supports, or would want to suppor, Israel like we do.

Like I said, we should pack our sh#t and leave Iraq to their own devices, 5 bucks say they would be in a civil war inside 2 weeks. 3 weeks later one or more groups in the region would be screaming for our help and money for aide! A month later they would be sending terrorist after us because we left Iraq with no security!

You do that, and Iraq will be in a WORSE situation than before with Hussein. There will be a civil war. Either the Sunnis or Shiites would win. The leader would in all likelyhood pursue Hussein like tactics, and start eliminating (executing) the other party members.

That's the sadest thing. We can't leave Iraq now. It's a mess started by Double-ya.


What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

Are you one of the 38 % of people in the US who approve of Bush ?

'Cause I'm not.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Living at home, they were civlians with children who had every right to life. We took that away from them.

We murdered them. Your defense again is spewing the numbers of our soliders that would have died had we not used the nukes.

So surely if you believe that, then you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

I bet if we were on the receiving side of those nukes, your views would have been quiet different. Read the paragraph above about a nuke strike by a terrorist. Is it justified? Well, according to your reasoning, it would be.

You have got to be kidding me!!!

O.K. I will quit using small numbers like the 105,000 killed in the nuke attacks.

Lets now keep score of Japans kill rate shall we?

1935 to 1945: Deaths directly caused by Japans military conquest of the period.

China: 10 Million.....yes 10 Million!!!
Indonesia: 4 Million
French Indo China: 1 Million
Korea: 60,000
Phillipenes: 147,000
Burma: 60,000
Singapore: 50,000

Total for those of you keeping score-----15,317,000 YES Fifteen MILLION threehundred seventeen thousand men women and children killed by the empire of Japan during the war years!!!

If the U.S. had killed that many in less than a decade then we would deserve to be wiped off the face of the planet!!!

15 + Million people is a far cry from several border fights and a pissed off Saudi boy because the US is influencing who runs his country!!

AGAIN!!! The Japanese got off EASY with only 105,000 killed to bring the end of the war! And only a total of 2.1 million citizens of Japan killed.

Oops EDIT: I missed some of Japans body count earlier...add 57,000 dead from what is listed as "Pacific Islands" Mostly small fishing villages from what I gather, and a bonus kill of 5000 from Thailand.......lessee....brings the kill to what 15,379,000. Yeah, I am all broken up about the US killing 105,000 to stop wholesale human slaughter.......the only ones in history that can top Japans kill rate is Germany, they managed to kill 23 million Russians before they were done.

 

[Thurman Merman]

The japanese were training there civilian population to fight to the last man, woman and child upon an allied invasion of the homeland. Just to recap an important part of my post, Fuschida a well respected pilot and leader of the attack on pearl harbor by The JAPANESE, said the dropping of the Atomic Bombs were justified. This is a man who had a first hand perspective on the finaticism of the then japenese cultural. The japenese did not surrender, they committed rituilistic suicide. Of all the fighting on Iwo Jima less than 200 prisoners were take and over 15,000 japanese killed, and it was not because we did not take prisoners

The proper way for Hari Kari, slice open the abdomen then slice the throat. If you felt you did your duty then you may commit this inside. But if you felt you failed the emperor then your blood was spilt on the naked earth. This really sounds like people who would sue for peace. They had to have a weapon so grotesque as to shock them into reality they there was no glimmer of hope of fighting. Yet some military commanders refuse to surrender.

This was not a I love you, you love me kind of culture.

 

[Flyer1015]

You have got to be kidding me!!!

O.K. I will quit using small numbers like the 105,000 killed in the nuke attacks.

Lets now keep score of Japans kill rate shall we?

1935 to 1945: Deaths directly caused by Japans military conquest of the period.

China: 10 Million.....yes 10 Million!!!
Indonesia: 4 Million
French Indo China: 1 Million
Korea: 60,000
Phillipenes: 147,000
Burma: 60,000
Singapore: 50,000

Total for those of you keeping score-----15,317,000 YES Fifteen MILLION threehundred seventeen thousand men women and children killed by the empire of Japan during the war years!!!

If the U.S. had killed that many in less than a decade then we would deserve to be wiped off the face of the planet!!!

15 + Million people is a far cry from several border fights and a pissed off Saudi boy because the US is influencing who runs his country!!

AGAIN!!! The Japanese got off EASY with only 105,000 killed to bring the end of the war! And only a total of 2.1 million citizens of Japan killed.

Oops EDIT: I missed some of Japans body count earlier...add 57,000 dead from what is listed as "Pacific Islands" Mostly small fishing villages from what I gather, and a bonus kill of 5000 from Thailand.......lessee....brings the kill to what 15,379,000. Yeah, I am all broken up about the US killing 105,000 to stop wholesale human slaughter.......the only ones in history that can top Japans kill rate is Germany, they managed to kill 23 million Russians before they were done.

Again, now you mention their kill rate as justification. Not good enough.

All those people dying is sad isn't it?

Look how bad it is in many parts of Africa, with systematic massive ethnic cleansing/genocide.

For the most part, we've turned a blind eye to them.

What about their kill rate? How many millions have died there? (Numbers including not only those killed in direct violence, but also indirectly as a result of the conflict... driven from their land, lack of food, etc.)



We've all got our own opinions.

There are some who believe that using the atomic bomb in Japan was right, there are those who believe it was wrong.


This thread has run it's course, I'm out! Peace.

 

[Tomct]

:angryfireFlyer...you are definately an EMBARASSMENT to ANY American Veteran. The way you look at WWII alone, is scary! You are fortunate enough to have the 20/20 hindsight. Maybe you NEED to crack some history books. I would suggest ( The Raping Of Nanking, Flyboys, Flag of our Fathers, The USS Indianapolis and the Ghost Soldiers) to name a few. The fact that you sit here and spew your "Lefto Wacko Crap" and you are free to do so BECAUSE of all those HEROES from WWII, you make me SICK!
You sir are a disrespectful person! Why don't you ask all of the people that have been saved from being tortured by Hussein if they are mad we are there in IRAQ. Why don't you stop one of the returning home soldiers and ASK them how things are REALLY going over there, Lord knows that the news agencies don't want you to know ANY of the GOOD things that are going on over there!
I know because I have a number of friends over there and all they can talk about is how dissappointed they are the REAL news is not getting to the American Public. You make me SICK!!uke:

 

[Flyer1015]

Flyer...you are definately an EMBARASSMENT to ANY American Veteran. The way you look at WWII alone, is scary! You are fortunate enough to have the 20/20 hindsight. Maybe you NEED to crack some history books. I would suggest ( The Raping Of Nanking, Flyboys, Flag of our Fathers, The USS Indianapolis and the Ghost Soldiers) to name a few. The fact that you sit here and spew your "Lefto Wacko Crap" and you are free to do so BECAUSE of all those HEROES from WWII, you make me SICK!

I respect our soldiers and WWII veterans. I've simply expressed my own opinion. I'm NOT the only one in America who thinks that we should not have used atomic bombs over two cities. You can call it "Lefto Wacko Crap" or whatever you like.

Why don't you ask all of the people that have been saved from being tortured by Hussein if they are mad we are there in IRAQ. Why don't you stop one of the returning home soldiers and ASK them how things are REALLY going over there, Lord knows that the news agencies don't want you to know ANY of the GOOD things that are going on over there!
I know because I have a number of friends over there and all they can talk about is how dissappointed they are the REAL news is not getting to the American Public. You make me SICK!!

We've saved them torture from Hussein, only to have a completely unstable country with continuous sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

Now, instead of Hussein acting as the executioner, militia like members of the Sunni and Shiite groups do the job instead.

Same people dying, just a different "upper management" if you will.

The entire country is in complete shambles, with no sign of becoming a stable democracy as George Bush hopes.

You have soldier friends who are pleased with the Iraq results? That's good.

I only know of one soldier in Iraq, and the poor guy just wants to come home and be with his wife and two kids.

Don't get me wrong. I support our soliders 100%. I wish each and every single one of them a safe mission, and pray they come home alive.

The news media here doesn't have to paint a bad picture, as you claim. The Iraqis do that job for us. The sectarian violence, mosque bombings, car bombings, massive graves of executed Sunnis or Shiites, etc etc.

You must be one of the 38% who approve of Bush ?

 

[Tomct]

Yes I am and PROUD OF IT!! It will be people like you that are backtracking and saying we should have stayed longer or done something more when" heaven forbid" something bad happens here again!!
It is not the Presidents fault! These things were in motion BEFORE he took office. Ask "slick Willie" why he did not take Bin Laden when they had him during his Presidency? Why, they could not get him to okay it because he was affraid of what everyone would think of him! He was to busy trying to make everyone like him instead of thinking ahead of " What Could Possibly Happen..."
Thank HIM for that!!

 

[Flyer1015]

Yes I am and PROUD OF IT!! It will be people like you that are backtracking and saying we should have stayed longer or done something more when" heaven forbid" something bad happens here again!!
It is not the Presidents fault! These things were in motion BEFORE he took office. Ask "slick Willie" why he did not take Bin Laden when they had him during his Presidency? Why, they could not get him to okay it because he was affraid of what everyone would think of him! He was to busy trying to make everyone like him instead of thinking ahead of " What Could Possibly Happen..."
Thank HIM for that!!

It is the President Bush (and his administration's) fault.

We were lied to when taken to war (weapons of mass destruction), when none for found, he changed the reasoning to "remove a terrible dictator and to spread democracy." He went in without an exit strategy. The administration even tried to LINK Iraq with 9/11, when there isn't a shread of evidence to support that notion.

Good for you if you're in the 38% (and falling) that approve of Bush.

 

[h25b]

It is the President Bush (and his administration's) fault.

We were lied to when taken to war (weapons of mass destruction), when none for found, he changed the reasoning to "remove a terrible dictator and to spread democracy." He went in without an exit strategy. The administration even tried to LINK Iraq with 9/11, when there isn't a shread of evidence to support that notion.

Good for you if you're in the 38% (and falling) that approve of Bush.

You're using a very commonly used liberal distortion that most of you, unfortunately, seem to get away with.

They never tried to connect Hussein with the specific act of 9/11. They did however connect him with the terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. This was and still is true. Mr. Bush said from the beginning that you're either with us, or the terrorists and we would make no distinction between the terrorists or those that harbor them....

 

[blueridge71]

Bush never claimed that Saddam collaborated on 9-11.
http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

But that is only part of why we are in Iraq.

We are in Iraq because he also had a WMD program. The big lie is that we did not find evidence of WMDs or Saddam's research program. The Iraq Survery Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group) reported that Iraq had numerous development programs for banned weapons and was maneuvering to end sanctions to restart those programs in earnest. They also had systems to procure items for weapons development that were banned under the sanctions.

The only thing that we didn't find was stockpiles of weapons, and that has been what the media and Democrat furor has been over. They would lead you to believe that we found nothing. They lie.

The big question is what happened to the stockpiles that we knew existed, but did not find. My belief is that they were moved somewhere friendly. (Syria, I'm looking in your direction.) After all, in the 12 year "rush to war," Saddam had ample time to hide and relocate his stockpiles.

The combination of WMDs and terror ties is dangerous. It is even more dangerous now with Iran, because President Mahmoud sees that the Democrats and liberal care more about regaining power than about truth, victory, and security. He is emboldened by that. A bold madman with a nuclear weapon is very dangerous indeed. Mark my words, he will not be deterred by negotiations.

 

[SkyW120]

And let it be a reminder as to why other heroes are making the ultimate sacriface in the sands of the middle east.

I'm confused, are you trying to draw a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq? How many of the Hijackers were from Iraq? Zero.

 

[blueridge71]

The comparison between Japan and the Islamofascist Terrorists is interesting. Both groups were radical fanatics who would rather die a certain death than retreat in the face of overwhelming odds. Both groups had cultures that were highly militarized, highly propagandized, and that glorified death in battle.

One one hand, however, Japan had leaders like Admiral Yamamoto who cautioned that Japan would lose a long war due to superior US industrial capacity. The IFTs, on the other hand, are represented by President Mahmoud who believes that it is his duty to introduce more chaos into the world in order hasten the return of the Shiite version of the Messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

Japan and Germany had to be utterly destroyed to be defeated. If we had attempted to preserve their infrastructure, we could have faced them again in 20-30 years, just as the Allies allowed Germany to surrender in 1918, then had to face a rearmed and stronger Germany in 1939. Similarly, Saddam's regime was preserved in 1991 and he had the audacity to claim victory in the Persian Gulf War. He would have rearmed and been worse than ever if he had been allowed to bribe our European allies in lifting sanctions.

With respect to the term "Islamofascist," dictionary.com defines "fascism" as

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

This describes the Islamic dictatorship much better than it does anything George Bush is associated with. OBL, Saddam, and President Mahmoud are the HITs (Hitlers-in-training), not George Bush. Furthermore, it is the HITs that are advocating the destruction of the Jews (sound familiar?) and waging war on innocent civilians. The US went out of its way to minimize civilian casualties to the extent that our restraint in the early days may be the cause of some of our problems now.

The big difference between Japan and the IFTs is that Japan was one nation. The IFTs are decentralized and, in many cases, hiding in countries that are ostensibly our allies. They are much harder to root out and destroy than, say, a couple of Japanese divisions on a small island.

This is especially true when you take the current political situation into account. The opposition party is more interested in politics as usual and regaining power than in victory and protecting the US. Their comments, trumpeted on the US newsmedia and the foreign press, give comfort and encouragement to the enemy. You may say that this is a bit harsh, but when is the last time that the Democrats offered anything constructive on the war? They have been much too busy comparing US troops to nazis and Saddam's thugs (always unfavorably).

And remember it was two Democrat administrations who are responsible for the majority of our problems today. Carter, who allowed the Ayatollah to come to power in Iran, and Clinton, who didn't take out OBL when he had the chance and who talked about regime change in Iraq, but never did anything about that either. Together the two of them gave us the North Korea nuclear program.

 

[h25b]

I'm confused, are you trying to draw a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq? How many of the Hijackers were from Iraq? Zero.

No one is trying to draw that conclusion... That's the point. The left wing, stand for nothing, got no plan, liberals are trying to make the world believe that the Bush administration made that assertion when in fact they didn't. They simply stated that Iraq had terrorist connections, WHICH THEY DID !!! We are in a war on terror. If you want to participate in the activities of ANY terrorist organization then be prepared to face the consequences. That's the whole point.

 

[Flyer1015]

Mr. Bush said from the beginning that you're either with us, or the terrorists and we would make no distinction between the terrorists or those that harbor them....

Did you read my previous posts, specifically:

What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

***************************************************


Whatever.

I'm not going to argue with a bunch of staunch pro-Bush supporters. I've had it with the illegal wiretapping, library records and other info pulled via the Patriot Act, and illegal disclosure of confiential info (Valerie Plame identity) for his political gain. You know, honestly, I feel that the Bush administration has "taken away" more freedoms from us than the terrorists have. How many net terrorists has the illegal wiretapping and Patriot Act helped capture? OH wait, zero.

But again, whatever.

Bush's [Presidential] time is up in 2008, and then hopefully we won't get another C-average Republican President.

 

[goodto50meters]

When are they going to make a movie about the 100000 civilians killed by osama bush? I cant wait for that to come out,...wait...are they going to make a movie about the US abuse of war prisoners? What about a movie about Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

I for one dont care.

I could care less about 911 since it didnt affect me any nor did it provide for food for my family. Every 911, i got to a peace rally that talks about the killing of ALL victims of bad leadership and terrorists.

Dickless fuc&head,

I am willing to bet that if Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, and the others like them were comming after yours or your family's sorry ass you would be the first to say thanks to the US Military for trying to protect you.

Oh wait, my bad....you would spit in their face! Sorry.

Go away, I hear Cuba is nice. Tell Fidel to go fuc& himself when you get there.

 

[goodto50meters]

Of course we can always sit around with our thumb up our butt and do nothing and wait for some terrorist to detonate a nuke in New York.............would that appease the protesters I wonder?

Only if they were there when it went off!

 

[h25b]

Did you read my previous posts, specifically:

What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

Failing miserably ??? We haven't been attacked again on our soil have we ? That's the whole idea. I don't think we should've been too concerned about international support. What's so arrogant about saying if you're a terrorist or in any way affiliated with them we are going to hunt you down and kill/capture you. This isn't arrogance, it's just simply an acknowledgement that the previous policies obviously didn't work so it's time to try something else. I mean really, if you're not a state sponsor of terror what do you have to worry about ? Germany and France had big time fingers in the pot with Iraq and didn't want their interests exposed.

I really don't think you understand the historical significance of what 9/11 meant to this country in terms of national security. It's a whole new ballgame now and we need to all radically change our thinking.

 

[Flyer1015]

Failing miserably ??? We haven't been attacked again on our soil have we ? That's the whole idea. I don't think we should've been too concerned about international support. What's so arrogant about saying if you're a terrorist or in any way affiliated with them we are going to hunt you down and kill/capture you. This isn't arrogance, it's just simply an acknowledgement that the previous policies obviously didn't work so it's time to try something else. I mean really, if you're not a state sponsor of terror what do you have to worry about ? Germany and France had big time fingers in the pot with Iraq and didn't want their interests exposed.

I really don't think you understand the historical significance of what 9/11 meant to this country in terms of national security. It's a whole new ballgame now and we need to all radically change our thinking.

I DO understand the historical significance of 9/11 in terms of national security.

"We haven't been attacked" so the Bush administration's plan is working is your reasoning. That's laughable at best.

Look at that Bush quote again, " Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Why can't a country be neither? Why can't a country NOT be with the terrorists, and NOT be with "us." It's arrogance, pure and simple. It's no surprise the USA has become the most arrogant in the world.


And yes, we NEED to care about international support. Look at Pakistan. Musharraf has done a decent job of rounding up terrorists to the best of his abilities. He has dedicated many troops to the western border with Afghanistan. Other US-friendly middle eastern countries (Jordan and UAE as examples) continue to hunt for terrorists as well. We NEED them to continue to do so.

What the hell makes you think that you can do all that yourself with no international support ? If you want to fight and beat terrorism, then we need all the international support we can get.

 

[Tomct]

They can't be neutral! They HAVE to make a decision....yes/no! Plain and simple. There is no middle groud for their positions. Those are the very countries that if invaded, who will they come to first......any guesses....OH YEAH, the BIG COP on the block! The only time most of these countries come to us is for money, help, protection or lets see.....MONEY!!

You are right...Pakistan and Afghanistan are doing good things...i.e. they are supporting us and have MADE that choice! Again, NO MIDDLE ROAD! Yes/No!

 

[Flyer1015]

They can't be neutral! They HAVE to make a decision....yes/no! Plain and simple. There is no middle groud for their positions. Those are the very countries that if invaded, who will they come to first......any guesses....OH YEAH, the BIG COP on the block! The only time most of these countries come to us is for money, help, protection or lets see.....MONEY!!

You are right...Pakistan and Afghanistan are doing good things...i.e. they are supporting us and have MADE that choice! Again, NO MIDDLE ROAD! Yes/No!

There should be middle ground. Why do they HAVE to make a decision? Look at China. They could give less a rats ass.

Consider country X. Country X has no history of terrorists operating within thier country. Country X does not harbor or support terrorists. Country X is your average developing nation, already facing problems of its own. Now, it has to join the USA to fight terrorism, even though it didn't ask for it? What the hell for? And who's gonna pay for all that? Why should country X be forced to join the USA or forced to join with terrorists.

That's too arrogant of the us.

And for the record, Pakistan could have said,
"No, we will not help you in the war on terror, so we are not with you."
"And no, we will not join or support the terrorist side."
"We are middle ground. We have enough problems with India and the Kashmir conflict."

See the point ?

 

[blueridge71]

I'm not going to argue with a bunch of staunch pro-Bush supporters. I've had it with the illegal wiretapping, library records and other info pulled via the Patriot Act, and illegal disclosure of confiential info (Valerie Plame identity) for his political gain. You know, honestly, I feel that the Bush administration has "taken away" more freedoms from us than the terrorists have. How many net terrorists has the illegal wiretapping and Patriot Act helped capture? OH wait, zero.

The only freedoms taken away are those of the terrorists. Do you even know what the PATRIOT Act does? It simply allows intelligence and law enforcement agencies to share information in terrorist cases the same way they do in criminal cases.

Do you honestly think that President Bush is going to tap your phone to see if you are talking to 900 sex numbers or to find out what you like on your pizza? The only phones that they tap are people who are talking to terrorists. Does that not make sense?

Although I agree that there should be limitations and oversight. A Hillary Clinton admininstration might not be so trustworthy. Remember when her husband had the FBI bring over the files on his enemies?

And frankly, you don't have any idea how many terrorists have been captured or plots disrupted. Do you think that they rush out and tell the press every time they make a breakthrough? I happen to know that much more goes on behind the scenes than you might think, although I'm not in a position to discuss specifics.