will killing bush do anything - or will it become worse

[truthaddict11]

i mean as musch as i dispese the guy look who would replace him DICK cheney. the guy who wanted to nuke bahgdad i mean bush is horrible but look who would replace him plus killing bush would only raise this idiotacracy called patriotism

[Nateddi]

Cheney would be even worse.

Bush deserves execution, however not assassination. Unrealistically, if there is a revolution, he would be put on trial; but realistically there is no point in killing bush; it will just rekindle the nationalist movement fired up on S11.

[American Kid]

Both of you fucking suck.

Ugh........you just........suck.

Here's what killing Bush would do: Leave a woman without her husband, and two twin daughters without their father. Not to mention the greatest nation this world has ever seen without a leader- ---but only temporarily. You're both at least bright enough to realize this beast has more than one head, and if you cut one off, well then.......

But you've got SUCH big hearts, though. Thank God for the rest of us that you know what's best for everyone. So here's a suggestion: stay in your fucking caves where you belong. Your voices are loud and obnoxious, but never heard nor even considered, with any shred of validity, by anyone that matters, their only redeeming quality being their nascent obscurity. NO ONE CARES. So shut the fuck up. But if you must, continue on chirping my little birdies, it........ sometimes can be amusing. I can't say it's not, after a full night's WORK, after hitting MCDONALD'S on the way home, kicking back un-lacing my NIKES, flipping on my SONY television, watching the news on CNN, then clicking on my DELL computer---- just to come here and giggle with amusement at you guys.

................Respond if you MUST, but realize I've so fucking had it with ALL you anarchists, revolutionaries, and other such fucking superheroes of our day and age, that it doesn't even warm my cockles to taunt and/or debate you anymore.

It's not the giggle it used to be. It's actually getting to be quite a bummer. Because I actually feel bad for you. This isn't a political thing. You're just miserable, restless people who are SO ARROGANT, that you think the cooky, crazy, cockamammie notions in your head as to what's wrong with the world and what's to be done about it, are the template, the final ingredient to some ethereal, shapeless vision of an idealized utopia that exist, no doubt, only in YOUR MINDS. But continue whining if you must. It is a FREE COUNTRY.

I take comfort in the fact that it's all about as consequential to anything that really matters in this world as any random ocean wave that breaks along the shore. Wave after wave, after wave, after wave, after wave, after wave, after wave..............

-Kid

(I'm fucking sick of all these Bush/death-related threads. You people are always ranting about the CIA and their evil ways; keep whining about killing our president and you might just luck out and stir their attention)

[Stormin Norman]

If you didn't say it I would have. Thanks, you did a great job, very well put. Your views as well as a few others are the reason I even frequent this website. Don't concentrate on these dumbass people. Listen to the few voices of reason that exist on this site. There are even some socialist who lay out their positions in a reasonable fashion and are quite interesting to debate. That's right. I admit to respecting some of the leftists or at least their ability to state their ability to state their case. It is not their fault they have a weaker argument.
Surely, there are some ignorant people that abuse their right to free speech. These people are to be castigated or ignored.

[Xvall]

Quote: from American Kid on 4:11 am on July 13, 2002
Both of you fucking suck.

Ugh........you just........suck.

Here's what killing Bush would do: Leave a woman without her husband, and two twin daughters without their father. Not to mention the greatest nation this world has ever seen without a leader-

Boo, Hoo. Poor Ms. Bush. What about all those Afghan families left without children, and family members? No one really cares about them, huh? Why the hell should we care about the stupid president when he sure as hell doesn't give a damn about anyone elses life. You would not be left without a president, as Dick Cheyney would take charge. He would eventually die of a heart attack, and then we'll be stuck with Rumsfled; An even worse tyrant.

[American Kid]

The speaker of the house is waiting very patiently behind Mr. Cheney should he keel over grasping his left arm.

And the blood of those Afgan people lays firmly stained on the turban of Mullah Omar and his arrogant underlings who didn't hand over Osama when we gave them the chance. Nearly a month, as I remember.

-Kid

(ps, thanks Norman. Ditto on all those nice things you had to say)

[Xvall]

So? That's no excuse. The Afghan civilians didn't have any power to do anything. That's like someone killing my family, and then me blowing up an entire town looking for the guy who did it. It's not justified.

[American Kid]

'S not even close, dude. We're talking global politics and 3000 lives that were lost. Unless you're a mormon or your dad was a rock star or something, I don't think the number of people in your family could hold a candle to that.

-Kid

[Xvall]

3,000.. But in return, collateral dammage estimated in Afghanistan was about 6,000... Nearly double....

[Thine Stalin]

I dunno, lets kill his family too, they did it to the tzar.

[Xvall]

Bad Thine Stalin!
No cookie for you!
No need to take it out on his family, because they didn't do anything. Let us not follow that 'tradition'.

[truthaddict11]

american kid, you are an asshole. the united states has murdered millions of people in the world the indigeous peoples of the americas, the philipinoes and many others. what about them? or do you not care a long as you can eat mcdonalds and wear nike clothes.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 7:40 pm on July 13, 2002
Bad Thine Stalin!
No cookie for you!
No need to take it out on his family, because they didn't do anything. Let us not follow that 'tradition'.


but we can still kill cheney right?

[Xvall]

He's going to have a heart attack. He'll die on his own.

[Lardlad95]

oh...yeah well lets keep giving him triple bacon cheese burgers

[Xvall]

Yeah. If you really want to kill them that badly. Take them to 7-11 and buy George a pretzel.

[Stormin Norman]

Let me get this straight. You people are comparing our actions in prosecuting this war against terror to that of the terrorists. The more I read of your posts the more it becomes clear that you are living in a land of delusion. You will say anything to critisize the U.S., whether it is accurate or not.
Let me explain the difference between war and terrorism, like I would to any two year old. Terrorists use terror and violence to reach a political end. Typically, they target civilians as a way of instilling fear and doubt in the target country. One way of doing this includes the disruption of the infrastructure needed to operate that society. The end goal of the current terrorist threat is the complete destruction of America and the freedom it enjoys.
We were the ones who were attacked. Would you not agree that terrorists acts warrant retaliation. As acts of war, terrorism must be dealt with by the means of war. There is no way to negotiate with fanatics. How do you fight an enemy that is willing to die for their cause? You accomodate them by killing them. We are actively engaged in attempt to do this very thing. The difference in what we are doing can be explained by the fact that we refrain from engaging the civilian population. Collateral damage is a tragic result rooted in the realities of war. When an aircraft comes under anti-aircraft fire over a civilian population, the enemies means to wage war must be destroyed. This includes risking civilian casualties by engaging the enemy. If the general population wanted to avoid such things they would do more to alert our forces of the potential threats to our men. Information like this could be used to destory such devices in a safer manner on the ground. Needless to say the enemies capability must be destroyed one way or another in order to minimize the damages to our forces.
Would you people agree that the Afgan people our better off as a result of our actions to remove the Taliban? How many people died because of the Taliban's repression of its people? How many when the Taliban took control of that nation?
This moronic view of the world that many of you commies proport to believe can be liken to that of the no tolerance policy of a school administration. When a kid is involved in a fight on the playground both students are suspended. The principal does not hear the arguments given by either student or take eye witness reports in deciding who was the aggressor. They merely say that fighting is always wrong and punish them both. Is the student who is being bullied wrong in defending himself from harm? The answer is, no.

[Xvall]

We were the ones who were attacked. Would you not agree that terrorists acts warrant retaliation.

Yes. This could be solved by assasinating the people who did this. But blowing up half of a country, and lebelling other countries that had nothing to do with it, such as North Korea, as an 'Axis of Evil' is not nececarry. Nor is it nececarry to bomb villages in search of the killer. Imagine if the FBI had started blowing up cities in America to find McVeigh after the Oklahoma Bombing. Would that be 'justified'?

As acts of war, terrorism must be dealt with by the means of war. There is no way to negotiate with fanatics.

Actually, it is possible to negotiate with fanatics. And if it can only be dealth with by war, the only possible 'solution' would be to kill every member of the Taliban an Al Quieda. And if you did, more would rise up in their place. It will last an eternity.

How do you fight an enemy that is willing to die for their cause?

Convince them not to die for their cause?

Collateral damage is a tragic result rooted in the realities of war.

No. Collateral dammage is a tragic result of carelessness from the military. It's not usually an 'accident'. The military usually knows when civilians will be around an area that is to be bombed.

Would you people agree that the Afgan people our better off as a result of our actions to remove the Taliban?

Yes. But than again, The Soviets Tired this a while back. And good ol' Raegan thought it would be best to support Bin Laden.

This moronic view of the world that many of you commies proport to believe can be liken to that of the no tolerance policy of a school administration. When a kid is involved in a fight on the playground both students are suspended. The principal does not hear the arguments given by either student or take eye witness reports in deciding who was the aggressor. They merely say that fighting is always wrong and punish them both. Is the student who is being bullied wrong in defending himself from harm?

Two kids getting into a fight, and buildings and villages being blown up are two completely diffirent things. The kids getting into a fight is usually just some meaningless quarelling. They never pull out 'patriot missiles' and launch them at each others houses.

[Nateddi]

We were the ones who were attacked. Would you not agree that terrorists acts warrant retaliation. As acts of war, terrorism must be dealt with by the means of war.
I agree with you, terrorists need to be punished, and in this case, some sort of military effort is appropriate IMO. I am sure that most of the left can agree on that and are not lost in hyper liberal pacififist ideals.

The difference in what we are doing can be explained by the fact that we refrain from engaging the civilian population. Collateral damage is a tragic result rooted in the realities of war. When an aircraft comes under anti-aircraft fire over a civilian population, the enemies means to wage war must be destroyed. This includes risking civilian casualties by engaging the enemy.
We have killed more civilians than terrorists. IMO we have killed somewhere around 5,000 civilians now. Our war effort was very reactionary, we mostly dropped bombs to ensure that nobody of our men got hurt. We got many civilians. And guess what, I keep hearing on the news that another terror attack is inevitable, I guess our war effort of daisy cutters and cluster bombs really paid off in the end.

Needless to say the enemies capability must be destroyed one way or another in order to minimize the damages to our forces.
I would much rather have 100 troops killed and 100 civilian casualties rather than a dozen or so troops killed and 5,000 civilian casualties.

Would you people agree that the Afgan people our better off as a result of our actions to remove the Taliban? How many people died because of the Taliban's repression of its people? How many when the Taliban took control of that nation?
The taliban card is a weak thing to play. We supported the taliban when it was in our interest (spring-summer 2001). Our president met with them to discuss a caspian oil pipeline. History has proved that we could frankly care less about the people's will as long as the country provides for our economic wants. This is why we funded, assisted, trained, and armed the hardline islamic extremists, the mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet Union; they served our interests better. You probably didn't even know what the taliban were, and if you did you could care less. The last motive for the invasion of afghanistan was the liberation of their people, its something that historically the US could care less.

This moronic view of the world that many of you commies proport to believe can be liken to that of the no tolerance policy of a school administration. When a kid is involved in a fight on the playground both students are suspended. The principal does not hear the arguments given by either student or take eye witness reports in deciding who was the aggressor. They merely say that fighting is always wrong and punish them both. Is the student who is being bullied wrong in defending himself from harm? The answer is, no.
What is your point? This is more serious. Appeasement is never a solution (with the attacker) in such a terrorist attack. However, this is more serious than a school fight, we need to watch how we respond.

(Edited by Nateddi at 5:53 am on July 14, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Assassination of the leaders of such terrorist organizations should be done in conjunction with the bombing and ground campaigns, as I am sure it is.
You claim that U.S. forces are responsible for killing the civilians. I put the blame on the civilians who did very little to oust a repressive regime, which allowed terrorist training camps to exist within their borders. You could also fault the enemy forces that use civilians as human shields as a matter of policy. They understand fool liberals in America will focus on these civilian casualties. It makes it easy to deter the public support for the war. Politicians who are dependent on your votes will hinder the military's prosecution of the war. In a nutshell, you are buying into Al Quida and Taliban propaganda. I wouldn't put it past them to kill their own people and invite CNN in to do a cover story. Besides, exactly where do you get your figures on these Afghani civilian casualties, Z magazine? Not that I would be dumb enough to change my stance on this war based off any collateral damage statistics that you could produce.
We never supported the Taliban. We never even recognized them as a legitimate nation. We did offer them humanitarian aid, since they were too incompetent to feed their own people. This is a farce generated by liberal 'news' rags.
The point in my analogy of the school children is to demonstrate the lack of objectivity applied by liberals when it comes to violence. What do you propose that we sit back and wait for millions of Americans to die from state sponsored terrorism? Would you rather that 1 million U.S. civilians die than 100 Afghan civilians?
Fact remains, prior to and after the removal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq, many resources where being employed to develop weapons of mass destruction. You know bubonic plague and small pox cocktails, nuclear devices, chemical nerve toxins. Why don't you think of the implications of a megalomaniac having such resources in their arsenal? North Korea and Iran and all of the state sponsors of terrorism should be lumped into the Axis of Evil since they currently have the same sort of weapons programs in their countries. Not only are the working to produce such catastrophic methods of killing Americans, but they borrow each other's technology to make up for weaknesses in their own programs. It has become a collaborative effort to do the very thing that you support, which is to destroy America, reduce us to the level where we can no longer engage in imperialist behavior. Is that not the same as your current communist agenda?
I see why you are so opposed to this war on terrorism, because you side with the enemy. Your end goals remain the same. Those goals being the repression of the human spirit and the destruction of American might. Communism and Islamic fundamentalism have the same desire, to return the world back to the good old Dark Ages.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:08 am on July 15, 2002)

[truthaddict11]

wasnt the taliban just a small version of the Suadi Arabia govt? i think i read that in a chomsky book.

[Stormin Norman]

Personally, I think we should be placing more emphasis on going to war with Saudi Arabi than Iraq. Although both are threats, I believe that the Saudis represent a more surreptious one. You are right in thinking that the Taliban was modeled after the Saudi government. The Saudis did help form such a sadistic government in Afghanistan, along with the Pakistanis. It is amazing to me that we consider such nations our allies. I only hope we are doing it out of convenience and will help the people destroy those regimes when the time comes.

The United States should have pulled Noam Chomsky's passport along time ago. The man is obvious an enemy of the state. If it were up to him we would be a communist nation.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:16 am on July 15, 2002)

[Moskitto]

Personally, I think we should be placing more emphasis on going to war with Saudi Arabi than Iraq.

I agree 100% with this statement. While Saudi Arabia does not have a totally genocidal nutcase as it's leader. Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries without any elections at all, has some of the most oppressive laws of any country, and they blame all they're problems on the British ex-pat community. The only decent thing they've done in recent times is the Israel-Palestine peace plan they proposed and the sad thing about that is no one's going to agree to it.

But with Saudi Arabia producing 25% of the worlds oil? I daubt anyone's going to move against them.

[death b4 dishonour]

If the US just invaded afghanistan instead of carpet bombing it, they probably would have caught Osama Bin Laden and MAYBE killed less civilains.

[Stormin Norman]

The fact that they have so much oil only offers yet another reason we should expedite the process. Deem that nation an enemy, dominate and conquer their forces, and then use the oil to fuel our war machines so we can suppress any other potential threat coming from that region. Let's just call it reparations for our having to go to war.

[Xvall]

How could they 'oust' their opressive government. It's not as easy as it seems. Seing as they're too busy trying to find food, let alone start a coup. I say again, the Soviets could have assisted in this 'oust' were it not for Raegan.

[Thine Stalin]

I personally cannot see how saudi arabia and iraq are threats to the united states. I think this is bullshit, and I hate you for saying such, people who go and accuse nations with little military capability, who can't even fight any countries outside of their immidiate neighbors, as threats, pisses the living hell out of me, and I want to explain how iraq is a threat, oh lemme guess, they going to shoot all these nuclear weapons we hear they have (yeah right) at us. Give me a break.

[Stormin Norman]

Afghanistan was not under the control of the Taliban at the time of the Soviet Invasion. Therefore, the argument that they would have been a liberating force is absurd. They would have been there captors. The Afghans would have been worse off under Soviet rule than that of the Taliban.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:34 pm on July 14, 2002
Afghanistan was not under the control of the Taliban at the time of the Soviet Invasion. Therefore, the argument that they would have been a liberating force is absurd. They would have been there captors. The Afghans would have been worse off under Soviet rule than that of the Taliban.

LOL!! At least the women would have rights under the Soviet Rule! And a constitution! They would have probably been better off under the Soviet Rule. If the Soviets were as 'cruel' as you seem to think they were, then they would have probably executed generals like Osoma Bin Laden. Then we wouldn't have this 9/11 problem, would we?

[Xvall]

http://www.a-l-o.org/

[Moskitto]

Acording to RAWA, Afghanistan was more democratic under the soviets than the Taliban.

[Xvall]

Yes. I was posting that to show that nearly EVERY revoutionary group would rather live under the soviets, where they at least have equality. Than under a Religeously run state where you can't shave.