Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Three countries supported the Taliban, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Wierd thing is that this wasn't a secret, but after 9/11 people literally weren't allowed to talk about this on TV. One man was actually kicked off a show for talking about it because it made the interviewer, Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly factor, "look bad." I read about that incident in the latest edition of Harpers magazine (a muckraker magazine). If anyone is interested, I'll post some snippets from the article after this. ^_^

Most of the support from the US came from Bush Sr. himself (who was head of the CIA at that time) who gave them millions and millions of dollars to train terrorists to combate the Turaki government in Afghanistan. This group later became the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban was what the Bush Sr. administration wanted at the time. They wanted a group to blow down the Turaki government and take over to form a leading party that was pro-USA (and hence, pro-USA trade---particularly oil). In fact, "our" Bush continued what his father did by trying to get business done with the Taliban over an oil pipeline through Afghanistan into Central Asian oil (whose trade was run by Russia). This oil would be cheaper for oil companies to get since it would no longer have to be bought through Russia. I'll include some links on this in my next post as well for anyone who is interested. ^_^

In fact, one reason why I (and France, heh heh) dislike Bush is because of what he did after 9/11. After the Taliban/Al Queda attacked the US in Sept, Bush halted the FBI investigations surrounding the attacks! You know why? He was trying to finish up negotiations with the Taliban for that same oil pipeline. At the same time he was giving his famous, "we will not negotiate with terrorists" speech. lol. This is important, because if Bush hadn't halted the investigations, Osama might not have gotten away.

In fact, the Bush administration threatend the Taliban with war if they didn't agree to the pipeline. The Taliban who, needless to say, hated us at that time, refused negotiations for the pipeline, and we then went to war with them. However, if they had agreed, we may not have gone to war with them at all. @_o'

"...negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs." CNN

Another reason why Bush is disliked by other countries is because his work in the Caryle Group. The Bush and Bin Laden family worked as business partners in the Caryle Group for years (that's where Bush made his first million). The problem is that the Bin Ladens (who are actually a nice family themselves, excluding their estranged son, Osama) pulled out before the war started while the Bush family didn't, even though they too contributed to the attack on America. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this already. Anyway, since the Caryle Group works with war material, this would pad the Bush family's bank account even more.

"Given that Carlyle's business is "defense," the Bushes and bin Ladens may well profit handsomely from the current war." Wall Street Journal.

Now, if anyone wants more information on this, I'll include the snippets from the first article and links to more information in my following posts. ^_^ Thank you! For more information on the war, you can also check out a long post I made called "War on Iraq, Review." It should be located in the Politics section as well. But to warn you, it's pretty dang long. @_o'

Oh, and believe it or not. That picture under this is real. lol. ^_^

Here ya go:

"We Decide, You Shut Up," Harpers Magazine, April-May 2003 edition.

This is an interview made on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News. This information was given by a man whose father died in 9/11. He spent much of his time after the incident trying to find out why it happened. Here is what he found:

"Our current president inherited a political legacy from his father that's responsible for training militarily, and economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the murder of my father and countless thousands of others."

"Six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter Administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."

This is from a discussion made by Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on September, 11. He was conversing to Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor (a Fox News program).

Bill O'Reilly had nothing to say to contradict him, so angry with humiliation, he "cut his mike" and did not air the show. Glick reported that after the interview, in his humiliation O'Reilly said to him, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to F@#$ pieces."

So, basically, by doing the same thing we did in the Iranian Conflict (by supplying one group with weapons and funding to battle another group we don't like, which the US is infamous for, especially to France. lol), we propelled the events of 9/11 ourselves (and we did so needlessly---I mean, for an oil pipeline? That certainly wasn't worth 3,000 deaths to me >_<).

If the US would stop giving our "enemies" funding and weapons to fight our other "enemies" (and then go tattle on them to the UN for having the same weapons given to them by the US earlier, in the case of the Iraqi war. @_o')---especially for reasons surrounding financial situations---then maybe we would stop screwing ourselves like this. The war on terrorism should start with the administrations of our own country, since we are often ironically the ones who fund our own terrorists. lol. We should be correcting these administration mistakes instead of making them worse, like Bush has been doing.

If anyone is still interested in this article, you could try the Harper's site at http://www.harpers.org/ though I don't know if it would be there since this is a recent edition. If anyone is REALLY interested in this article (because it is seriously hilarious how O'Reilly loses it and sounds like a moron. lol. ^_^ For those of you who don' t know him, O'Reilly is a really bad example of a right wing activist---so as not to affend any intelligent right wing people here ^_-. He's not a very nice guy as you can tell from that statement he made to Glick, and plus he's a borderline idiot. Sheesh!), then I'd be glad to to post more from that article when I get a chance. Just ask. ^_^
------

Here's some links I found on the other information. ^_^ Enjoy! ^_^

"Osama Bin Ladin joined a Secret Energy Commisson meeting of Senators and Oil execs."
http://www.gwbush.com/archive/index2-5-02.shtml

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Hindustan Times
AFP
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/bush_twarted.htm

"BUSHLADEN"
by Jared Israel [8 October 2001]
Includes report from the 'Wall Street Journal'
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

CNN, AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN, "Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Judicial Watch: Bush/bin Laden Connection "has now turned into a scandal!"
Comment by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

That's all I have for now. ^_^ Hope you enjoy!

Now, to clarrify a little more about the war. Many people have been in support of this war under the "Hitler Theory." For those of you who are unfamiliar with this, I'll explain. In WWII, Hitler gained control of Germany and began to build weapons, etc. which Germany wasn't allowed to do from the previous war. Then Hitler began "expanding" his country. His military began to advance into the neutral territory surrounding Germany and take it over through militaristic force. Now, the rest of Europe who just got over one war, were reluctant to try to take on Hitler because they didn't think it was worth another war. So, they basically just let him have that land. Well, this was a mistake because Hitler had intentions on taking over the rest of Europe. And taking over that land and building militaristic supplies only strenghted him. If they had stopped him earlier, then WWII might not have lasted so long.

Now, the American News stations are portraying Saddam as a "Hitler Theory" threat. They say that if he's allowed to build weapons, then he'll become a threat to the US just as Hitler did in Europe.

However! The "Hitler Theory" does not apply in the case of Saddam. Now here are the first differences:

Firstly, Saddam has not taken over any land that isn't his. Iraq has done no offensive militaristic tactics, only defensive tactics, which was propelled by us in the Iranian Conflict as a further note. Basically, Iraq has not "advanced" across land the way Hitler did (this is the heaviest reason why Hitler became a threat).
---
Secondly, Saddam didn't make the majority of his weapons. Here is another one of my most important points. Most of the weapons found in Iraq were the ones the US gave them in the Iranian Conflict. And, the few that the Iraqis did make were made by the machines and technology we gave them for making these weapons (including Anthrax).

For this info, try here at the Progressive site: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

We basically told them that they were allowed to have these particular materials and tools for building weapons as long as they fought Iran for us "in return." That was the deal. But after less than 20 years, we broke our promise on that deal once Iraq became weak enough through post-war recession following the Iranian Conflict for us to attack them (Sound suspicious? That's because that was our plan---read my previous posts for that info ^_^).

In fact, the weapons that we didn't give them "already built" were shown to be made by the weapon building materials and tools we did give them. In fact, much of the weapons they built themselves (using our supplies) were made for the Iranian Conflict almost 20 years ago. They've made very little militaristic supplies since.

So, does Iraq have weapons?

Yes, but not enough to make them a threat to us.

However, has Iraq actually been building weapons?

Hardly any, if any at all since the Iranian Conflict, and again not enough to make them a threat to us.

Technically however, this makes us the ones who violated UN sanctions by giving Iraq the militaristic materials to begin with. Basically, we told them it was OK. So, unlike the Germans under Hitler at that time, the Iraqi people aren't a militaristic people. They haven't been making their own weapons for offensive militaristic purposes, they've just basically been accepting them from us (they're not violent). Get it?

And quickly, many of you may say that we shouldn't let Saddam have weapons to begin with. However, not letting Germany have any weapons was a strong part of how Hitler came into power to begin with (you can probably find this information in any history book ^_^). Just because a country has weapons and is anti-American, doesn' t mean it will automatically attack America nor does it mean it is a threat at all.

There are dozens of anti-American countries in the world (some are much more violent than Iraq), and yet none of them have attacked us or even threatened to attack us with the exception of a small group made up of people from different anti-American races (Al Queda). And most of these countries already have weapons and are producing them right now. Iraq is the anti-American country that probably has the fewest weapons, so why are we targeting them? Don't you think it would make more since to use this energy to target a country that already is a threat?
-----
Thirdly, Hitler had the support of all his people, which made him a big threat in the event of a war. Saddam has very little support in his own country (like I said, he's just the lesser of two evils) . This breaks any threat his presence might have in a war. For example, most of the Iraq troops are just giving up now rather than fight "for Saddam." Needless to say, this wouldn't have happened with most German troops in WWII.

Fourthly, although Saddam is very anti-American, he has never made a direct threat to the US (before wartime). Like I said, just because a country is anti-American doesn't mean that it will attack us. The Iraqi people may not like the US, but they have never made any threats or plans to attack it. They're too busy trying to get their own country together.

Hitler was continusly making threats to "take over all of Europe" while he was offensively taking over land while backed by his people. Saddam has done none of this: make threats, take over land, mass produce weapons, have a standing economy, and be backed by his people. See the differences? Although a terrible man, Saddam is hardly the threat that Hitler was in his time.
-----
Another difference between Iraq and Germany of that time is that, although Germany's economy was still very bad (due to post war recession and imposed sanctions), thanks to Hitler, their economy became well enough to be able to support a war (one of the reasons Hitler was popular at that time).

Iraq, on the other hand, has a very bad economy due to post war recession from the Iranian Conflict (in which we gave Iran weapons to be used on them to add to the damage). And, their economy is not getting much better. Their country cannot handle a war with the US, and Saddam knows this. Hence, his reason for never actually threatening an attack on the US. Why would you threaten a country your own country cannot afford a war with? Hence, Iraq was never a militaristic threat to the US the way that Germany was to Europe. And once again, why don't we try to "defend" ourselves against an anti-American country that actually can afford a war with us?

----
And finally (and most importantly), the entire "Hitler Theory" falls apart at one issue. At his time, Hitler was the greatest threat to the interest to Europe and the rest of the world. Now, let's look at Saddam and the USA. Out of all the countries who are a threat to us, Iraq is towards the bottom, if even on the list at all.

Know who is towards the top of the list?
Korea.

Korea has actually been building their own militaristic materials without our help, which goes against our sanctions. They even started up a nuclear reactor, which could be used to make atom bombs (which we told them they couldn't do) to test us. And Bush did nothing.

Now this is a creepily similar example of the "Hitler Theory," in which Hitler kept breaking more and more sanctions on Germany to "test" if the rest of Europe would "punish" them. Europe didn't and so Hitler began taking over. Bush didn't "punish" Korea for this, and now they're starting to become even more of a threat.

Korea has an economy well enough to attack America.

Korea has the support of all its people in strong favor of attacking America.

Korea has been mass producing weapons of mass descruction against sacntions which could be used on America.

Korea has been training anti-American soldiers and even terrorists.

And most importantly, Korea has actually made threats to attack the US and is even suspected of having plans to attack US soil in the near future.

Bush has been doing nothing to stop this. So, for any of you who are wondering, what's the difference between Iraq and Korea?

Well for one thing, Korea has no oil. And Iraq has the second largest supply in the world. I hope that makes the even most pro-war of you wonder.

Now, the "Hitler Theory" means strategically going after the greatest threat to interest before it gets too strong to fight. Iraq is towards the bottom of threats, while Korea is towards the top. Why are we attacking a country that could never even have the ability to attack us for many many years, while we let another extremely anti-American and dangerous country continue to build weapons to be used on us?

The "Hitler Theory" can be applied to Korea, but not to Iraq. And yet, just like Europe did, we completely ignore this threat. Does anyone aside from me wonder what the result of that will be? I see another example of WWII coming some day, simply because we did the same ignorant thing that Europe did in WWII all because we were applying this "threat" to the wrong area just so our country could get oil. So much for the "war on terrorism."

If all you pro-war individuals truly love and support your country, then even you should be alarmed that we are wasting our efforts on fighting a weak, non-threatening country, while a stronger one gets ready to attack us. I love my country, that's why I want to protect it from true threats. And that's another reason why I'm mad at Bush. In fact, if all you pro-war individuals really do love your country and favor it's protection, then you would hate Bush. Which is why I sometimes don't understand why there are so many people who like both.

The Bush administration just sits there and lets these other countries like Korea get ready to attack us. If they really were concerned with "the war on terror" then wouldn't they actually be fighting a war with real terrorists? Did anyone ever stop to think that while we're off fighting this "war on terror" another 9/11 could easily happen? While we're fighting one country, then we're supposed to believe that no other anti-American country will come and attack us behind our backs?

After 9/11 Bush has done little to aid national defense, but has done much to aid national offense. This means that we can attack (pull offensive militaristic tactics) other countries really well (we have bombs, and troops, etc), but we can't even defend our own from a few men on some airplanes. Bush has put hardly anything into protecting our borders and aiding the professionals who deal with attacks such as the one on 9/11.

And what will we do now if something like that happens again? Nuke a plane? Send troops into a delicate negotaiting situation? How will we secure our borders? Anthrax our own land? We are still vulnerable to attacks simply because we just don't believe that anyone would really attack US soil. But it's happened before and it could happen again.

Look at Pearl Harbor. They kicked our butts that day and that was an army base they attacked to boot! In fact, the Japanese were the same threat at that time as Korea is now. Makes you think.

-----

So, all in all, the "Hitler Theory" does not apply to Saddam as of now, but applies more to other countries such as Korea. And Bush himself is only making this worse. One reason I don't support Bush, is because by ignoring real threats to the USA, and attacking minor ones, and by putting all militaristic finances into offense instead of defense, he only makes our country more vulnerable and hated by the world. For those of you who believe that Bush is "righting the wrongs" of past presidents, not only is he continuing the "wrongs" (such as this war in relation to the Iranian Conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban in relation to his father's reign), but he is even making our situation a whole lot worse (as I listed above). ^_^
----
For those of you interested in the Korean threat. Here are some links you might like: ^_^

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

Also, even though Clinton may not have been a great guy, he actually was the one who stuck with protecting us from the Korean threat. After Bush took over, he completely dropped protecting the US from the Korean and went after less dangerous countries that had oil. Go figure.

So, now Korea is getting more and more threatening to our interests (while Bush does litteraly nothing to stop them), and even other countries are starting to voice their concerns about this. If you really believe in the "Hitler Theory" then look here. ^_^

The end. lol. Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. I just put it here in case anyone is interested. ;P

If all you pro-war individuals truly love and support your country, then even you should be alarmed that we are wasting our efforts on fighting a weak, non-threatening country, while a stronger one gets ready to attack us. I love my country, that's why I want to protect it from true threats. And that's another reason why I'm mad at Bush. In fact, if all you pro-war individuals really do love your country and favor it's protection, then you would hate Bush. Which is why I sometimes don't understand why there are so many people who like both.

The Bush administration just sits there and lets these other countries like Korea get ready to attack us. If they really were concerned with "the war on terror" then wouldn't they actually be fighting a war with real terrorists? Did anyone ever stop to think that while we're off fighting this "war on terror" another 9/11 could easily happen? While we're fighting one country, then we're supposed to believe that no other anti-American country will come and attack us behind our backs?

After 9/11 Bush has done little to aid national defense, but has done much to aid national offense. This means that we can attack (pull offensive militaristic tactics) other countries really well (we have bombs, and troops, etc), but we can't even defend our own from a few men on some airplanes. Bush has put hardly anything into protecting our borders and aiding the professionals who deal with attacks such as the one on 9/11.

And what will we do now if something like that happens again? Nuke a plane? Send troops into a delicate negotaiting situation? How will we secure our borders? Anthrax our own land? We are still vulnerable to attacks simply because we just don't believe that anyone would really attack US soil. But it's happened before and it could happen again.

Look at Pearl Harbor. They kicked our butts that day and that was an army base they attacked to boot! In fact, the Japanese were the same threat at that time as Korea is now. Makes you think.

-----

So, all in all, the "Hitler Theory" does not apply to Saddam as of now, but applies more to other countries such as Korea. And Bush himself is only making this worse. One reason I don't support Bush, is because by ignoring real threats to the USA, and attacking minor ones, and by putting all militaristic finances into offense instead of defense, he only makes our country more vulnerable and hated by the world. For those of you who believe that Bush is "righting the wrongs" of past presidents, not only is he continuing the "wrongs" (such as this war in relation to the Iranian Conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban in relation to his father's reign), but he is even making our situation a whole lot worse (as I listed above). ^_^
----
For those of you interested in the Korean threat. Here are some links you might like: ^_^

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

Also, even though Clinton may not have been a great guy, he actually was the one who stuck with protecting us from the Korean threat. After Bush took over, he completely dropped protecting the US from the Korean and went after less dangerous countries that had oil. Go figure.

So, now Korea is getting more and more threatening to our interests (while Bush does litteraly nothing to stop them), and even other countries are starting to voice their concerns about this. If you really believe in the "Hitler Theory" then look here. ^_^

The end. lol. Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. I just put it here in case anyone is interested. ;P

FEEEW! Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. ^_- I won't force ya.

I basically just put this information here so people can better understand the reality behind the "war on terror" image being thrown around on TV. I also put it here so people can better understand where anti-war individuals stand in their beliefs. ^_^

Thanks for your patience.

now its your turn, don't_ask:

prove your point

Ooops! I just realized that I accidentally double posted one of my posts. Sorry about that. The NG screen told me that it didn't go through the first time, so I hit "post it" again. @_o' Sorry.

At 5/1/03 05:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Ooops! I just realized that I accidentally double posted one of my posts. Sorry about that. The NG screen told me that it didn't go through the first time, so I hit "post it" again. @_o' Sorry.

Ninja, let me tell you. This is ANNOYING. What you should do is get a geocities account (http://www.geocities.com) and then upload the text to there, then provide a link. If you do not do that I may separate you from your legs with a chainsaw.

Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

At 5/1/03 06:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

no its all about how much there is... its just 4 really long posts... and im sure u could cram it into just one post...

that and u dont have to apologize for the double post...

At 5/1/03 06:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

I think the point is that you progress your own ideas too far before you allow anyone else to refute your original claims. I read some of your post, and I knew about a lot of that stuff already. Lets just remember that if america hadnt funded "terrorism" in earlier days, the USSR would never have fallen, and millions of people would still be locked in Soviet imperialism. It WAS and unscrupulous tactic, but it DID work, although our dogs have turned to bite the hand that fed them (mainly 'cause the gravy train quit coming).

OK, that's fine. ^_^

But that was then and this is now. The problem is that we funded the "terrorists" earlier when we actually felt our country was in danger. That I'm not really against.

However, now we fund terrorists for everything. Mainly for reasons that will benifit us financially (such as trade). That was the problem with the funding of the Taliban. Also, the Taliban didn't change their view of America due to the "gravy train" (though that was a part of it) but more because the US began giving Palestine a hard time.

I feel that the US shouldn't be funding our own terrorist for any reasons other than for our own safety. I mean, 3,000 deaths is not worth an oil pipeline through Afghanistan (which we didn't even wind up getting in the end).

Also, the funding of terrorists wasn't my main point. I was more concerned with this war and how it relates to the Iranian Conflict, etc. How do you feel about us giving weapons and Anthrax, etc to Saddam so he could weaken Iran for us just so we could continue dominating their oil trade?

Oh well. Thanks for the comments. Like I said, I'm trying to shorten my posts a bit from now on. ^_^

Thank you NoNameProphet, for backin my opinion up! First a Judgewhatever with a thousand and something posts comes outta nowhere and tries to pointlessly destroy a compliment and puts Ninja_Scientist arguments down with no FACTS backin him up (egocentrism maybe? Maybe the "big Judgewhatever diety" can't have another diety around?)... Then a brown noser (is it spelled like this?) comes around and tries to show how great Judgewhatever is and tells me that arguments should be backed up with facts (Big news!). I just gave Ninja_Scientist a straighforward compliment for her arguments FULL of facts and sources! And this is a POLITICS forum, dammit! Why shouldn't be posts long?? I mean... is reading 20 or more lines this hard?? Politics can't be neatly discussed with just a few lines at a time!

At 5/2/03 01:19 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Also, the funding of terrorists wasn't my main point. I was more concerned with this war and how it relates to the Iranian Conflict, etc. How do you feel about us giving weapons and Anthrax, etc to Saddam so he could weaken Iran for us just so we could continue dominating their oil trade?

I dont think the oil trade was the "only" reason for arming Saddam. We had to create a balance of power between Saddam and Iran after we armed Iran in a money laundering scam (Iran-Contra) to fund the Sandanistas in south america, a threat much closer to home after the Cuban Missile crisis.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761573296

I must admit, however, you do have me doing my research. You might want to consider joining the DAG; you are an excellent debator, if a little long winded.

I dont think the oil trade was the "only" reason for arming Saddam. We had to create a balance of power between Saddam and Iran after we armed Iran in a money laundering scam (Iran-Contra) to fund the Sandanistas in south america, a threat much closer to home after the Cuban Missile crisis.

Although our "Iran-Contra" scam was a big part in how Iran became strong, the reason we supported Iraq in the Iranian Conflict was not because Iran was a physical danger to us.

Because we supported them (at least partially because) they were becoming strong enough not to depend on the US as an oil customer (which is very bad for the US since we are very dependent on the oil of other countries). And, they may have only decided to trade with our "enemies" or other anti-American countries (not a very good thing for us @_o').

(Basically it's kinda similar to our fears before Vietnam and Korea. These countries turned Communist and we were afriand they would dump us off in trading and go support Russia, our biggest enemy at the time, which needless to say, wouldn't exactly be a good thing. Of course, this fear wouldn't have been so great without the "Domino Theory," but that's another story).

Anyway, Iran wasn't strong enough to really be a true threat to us physically. That's why we didn't have the reason to go and bomb them ourselves (well, we could have pulled a "Bush" and say that they have weapons that we gave them and that we should go bomb them for that...or something).
And again by taking action like this simply for financial reasons, we keep making more problems for our country.

Here's the main problem:

We support some terrorists to fight one government instead of doing it ourselves, these people hate us and then become strong enough through our actions to be a threat to our trade, so we support another country to go fight them for us again, this country also hates us, and now we supposedly feel threatened by them through our own actions again.

We support some terrorists to fight another government (the Taliban and the Zuraki Government) for us, they hate us, and then they get strong enough through our actions to attack us.

Like I said before, America is very infamous for handling situations in this manner (especially for reasons surrounding financial situations, such as trade, etc, which makes us so unpopular with France as of now). The problem with this, is that our actions don't only affect us, but other countries as well.

In a nutshell, that's why so many countries hate America (for anyone who is wondering). Now if we did it only when we felt we were in physical danger and not financial danger, then maybe we wouldn't be as hated, because countries (such as France for example) would find appropriate reason for such action and wouldn't judge us so harshly for those decisions.

All in all, we have to stop supporting terrorists to do our dirty work for us. Otherwise we're just going to have to keep supporting more terrorists to fight the other terrorists we supported previously and then later support different terrorists to fight the others when we're done with them. The attack on 9/11 should have shown our country that this obviously isn't working! Is this the only way we can fight our enemies? To create and finance more?

We just make more countries angry everytime we do it. Afterall, the Taliban actually became anti-American because, after we got them in power, we went and started screwing with Palestine.

I think we just plain need to stop making new mistakes just to try to "fix" our old ones. It doesn't work.

Another reason I'm mad at Bush is that he's just going after the "problems" we've caused only if they have oil involved. Our main problem right now is Korea. And yet he does absolutely nothing about it. Again, even though Clinton wasn't a great guy, at least he kept up on the Korean threat. When Bush came in, he completely dropped it. And he has remained SO inactive about it, that other countries are starting to get alarmed.

Well, Korea doesn't have oil. Go figure. I support Capitalism, but it's a sad day in American history when we actually hand our "throne" over to the businesses themselves. This is why presidents aren't allowed to take bribes, it affects their ability to run the country in a way that's best for America. Well Bush has gone behond "bribe" because his family owns these companies to begin with. And now just look what's happening. This is rediculous.

In the future, we need to learn from this and make sure that anyone who applies for presidency cannot own a major business that will be affected by presidential actions. It's just not good for our country.

Few! All in all, my main point is that we need to stop making these mistakes now and Bush isn't helping.

At 4/30/03 05:01 PM, Jiperly wrote: The Taliban were created to remove the soveits from power, and they received cash from America during the cold war for doing so. heres some proof I found- the second link when i looked up "The History of the taliban"

http://www.expressnews.ualbert...es/ideas.cfm?p_ID=1517&s=a

No, I wasn't intimidated by Ninja Scientists post, I wsa serving a temporary ban(I asked for it), but anyway I have only one thing to say about our funding of the Taliban. We didn't directly fund terrorism but instaed we did it indirectly, and again our current Presiden George W Bush had nothing to do with it. Its almost like saying, "We can't arm soldiers because they might end up shooting us or each other", its not fair at all. As for their hatred for us goes, I think that it is purely motivated by religion.

a couple of points:

1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

3 Funding terrorism is not new. Have you ever heard of the 5th column? Its a military term for the last regiment in the perfect attack. Its part of the old roman "divide and conquer" strategy. How it works is to defeat a country, you must first destroy its solidarity (ie fund terrorist fringe groups). Then, you invade with the standard attack (1 column frontal, 1 column reserve, 1 column flank left, 1 column flank right, four columns total). The fifth column, in Iraq the Shi'ites and Kurds, are internal insurrectionists.

In conclusion, sadly, we HAVE to support insurrectionist groups in order to win ANY battle, not just those in the middle east. And trade IS a battle, which if we lose has the same consequences as any other. ALL wars are for money, no matter what they may seem on paper. Although I do agree that we should stay the hell out of the Israeli conflicts, mainly because it helps fuel our enemies insurrectionist groups.

We didn't directly fund terrorism but instaed we did it indirectly, and again our current Presiden George W Bush had nothing to do with it.

The US (especially Bush Sr.) sent millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists groups in Afghanistan directly. The purpose was to put in a power that was pro-American (and keep our trade going good). However, after we started screwing with Palenstine, we were faced with a very anti-American Taliban. Bush continued his father's plans by trying to negotiate with the same terrorists (again for purposes surrounding trade) even after 9/11. So "our" Bush didn't fund them earlier, but he was still trying to bargain with them (which would have given them more finances anyway) in continuation to his father's negotiations. So Bush didn't have anything to do with it then, but he sure had a lot to do with everything that happened afterwards. Again, look at Korea for example of his ignorance.

1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

I never heard of "the poor" ramming some planes into buildings. Now that was a good example of "moral code."

The people we supported weren't soldiers. The soldiers were loyal to the Zuraki Government. The people we supported were terrorists and extremests (who also hate America---not a good combination).

Also, the US will never "loose it's control" on trade. The issue is usually not trade alone, but oil trade particularly.

That's why 9/11 happened, it's why Osama got away, it's why the Iranian Contra happened, it's why the Iranian Conflict happened, that's why Saddam has Anthrax and other weapons of mass descruction, and that's why Korea is now becoming more of a threat.

It ALL has to do with oil trade. The problem is that the US is feverishly dependent on the oil of other countries. That's why we go to such pathetically desperate lengths (such as supporting our enemies) to get it. If you want US relations to get better some time soon, we NEED to start finding other sources of fuel.

Not controlling the trade of a few countries won't kill us....that is, as long as we stop depending on other countries just so our own can work right (I'm talking about oil again. *cough*).

And on an ending note, I'd much more prefer "squatters" than "might as well being bombed."

Ironically, as long as we "control all trade" (as you put it), then you won't have to worry, cause we'll probably continue to be bombed. If we "don't control all trade," then we won't. And if we had better sources of fuel, then we wouldn' t have to worry about "squatters" either. But of course, as long as our administration is making cash off of it, that's probably not going to happen for a while now is it?

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

Here's a common misconception I hear surprisingly often. A bunch of rich guys getting richer does not make the rest of the US richer. The only way it could would be if they had the same spending rates that an average class citizen did. Unfortunately, they don't. It's hard to think of ways to spend millions of dollars every day. Most of that cash gets put away in a valt and never "loops it's way through the economy" as some people think.

Here's another question. It has been shown that through certain "loop holes," car companies that make SUVs spared themselves a 1.1 billion tax dept by giving the bill to the American tax payer.

Basically, instructed by the government, certain cars are supposed to pay a certain tax. The "loop hole" is that SUVs have yet to be classified as any type of car on "the list," so the car manifactuers don't have to pay any tax at all.

This "savings" doesn' t get "passed on" to the consumers. Instead, the CEO's decided to pocket the cash themselves. So, now every single tax paying American has to pay a 1.1 billion dollar tax dept just so some rich guys can get even richer. And this money is going to take a long time to circulate through our society.

In fact, it's unlikely that you will see any of it back. Even if one guy buys a 2 million dollar pool, how much do you think 2 million dollars is going to spread accross our massive population? And if you do happen to see a little of it, it will most likely not be as much as the enormous taxes you had to pay until this tax dept is paid off. How fast can you spend 1.1 billion dollars? Not very. Most of it, like I said, goes in a valt, and will probably given to their rich kids someday (who may also be our future presidents. lol.).

How do you feel about "the rich getting richer benefits us all" now?

3 Funding terrorism is not new. Have you ever heard of the 5th column? Its a military term for the last regiment in the perfect attack. Its part of the old roman "divide and conquer" strategy. How it works is to defeat a country, you must first destroy its solidarity (ie fund terrorist fringe groups). Then, you invade with the standard attack (1 column frontal, 1 column reserve, 1 column flank left, 1 column flank right, four columns total). The fifth column, in Iraq the Shi'ites and Kurds, are internal insurrectionists.

In conclusion, sadly, we HAVE to support insurrectionist groups in order to win ANY battle, not just those in the middle east. And trade IS a battle, which if we lose has the same consequences as any other. ALL wars are for money, no matter what they may seem on paper. Although I do agree that we should stay the hell out of the Israeli conflicts, mainly because it helps fuel our enemies insurrectionist groups.

The problem is not supporting terrorism itself, it's why we have been supporting terrorism and if it's needed or not. Do you think we really need terrorists to fight the Iraqi people for example? What about the Zuraki government? We could have easily taken it down ourselves.

But I digress. I believe that supporting terrorists can have it's benefits when our country is in true danger from another. However, I don't think that oil trade or any kind of trade is worth giving millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists, especially when they are our enemies.

Firstly, it's very pathetic for a country supposedly as "powerful" as ours to have to get on our knees and give money, weapons, and "gifts" to people who hate us just because, like an infant, we can't ween ourselves off the supplies and aid (especially oil) of other countries.

We're not the world's "police man." Not unless you're idea of a police man is an addict who gives weapons to convicts to fight other convicts for him just because he's dependent on the both of them to fulfill his pathetic addiction.

Giving that much money and weapons to terrorists who hate us is like giving a homicidal maniac a gun in exchange for gas money....and then having to live with him.

Is that really worth it? Is that in our best interests?

If you love America so much, why would you want to keep it weak like that?

Anyway, though, this only makes our situation worse. For oil, we support terrorists who hate us, then we have to support more terrorists who hate us to fight the old ones, then we have to fund more terrorists to fight the others. Do you understand what I'm saying? So, we keep getting more and more enemies and we keep making them stronger and stronger until our country is surrounded by those who hate us and by those who now have the ability to attack us. And for what? Oil? Trade? Do you really think it's worth it?

Face facts. The attack on 9/11 should have proved that this isn't working. We need to start fighting our own battles and become more independent. We need to find other sources of fuel. We must stop using "trade" as a reason to pathetically put ourselves in the line of fire, and make people hate us and capable of acting on their hate. It's just not worth it.

Thanks for your support, Mjollnir and all. ^_^ I really appreciate it.

At 5/3/03 08:39 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: 1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

I never heard of "the poor" ramming some planes into buildings. Now that was a good example of "moral code."
Also, the US will never "loose it's control" on trade. The issue is usually not trade alone, but oil trade particularly.

The suicide bombers ARE poor. They kill themselves so the rich beneficiaries of these terrorist buy ins will take care of their families. They do it for money and respect that they cannot earn any other way. None of that has anything to do with oil, only money.

And on an ending note, I'd much more prefer "squatters" than "might as well being bombed."

how many squatters do you know? There are some places in downtown Memphis Id like you show you if you dont know any.

Ironically, as long as we "control all trade" (as you put it), then you won't have to worry, cause we'll probably continue to be bombed. If we "don't control all trade," then we won't. And if we had better sources of fuel, then we wouldn' t have to worry about "squatters" either. But of course, as long as our administration is making cash off of it, that's probably not going to happen for a while now is it?

how will better sources of fuel make the poor rich? Were fighting poverty here, not fighting for oil. Poor people are more highly motivated that the rich because they have more to gain. You keep saying that all were doing is making the rich richer, but you never say how to make the poor smarter and more capable. Its an age old problem with only one solution: public education. And that's state level corruption destroying that, not "bush".

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

Here's a common misconception I hear surprisingly often. A bunch of rich guys getting richer does not make the rest of the US richer. The only way it could would be if they had the same spending rates that an average class citizen did. Unfortunately, they don't. It's hard to think of ways to spend millions of dollars every day. Most of that cash gets put away in a valt and never "loops it's way through the economy" as some people think.

Actually its called "trickle-down economics". And all these extremely rich people pay up to 50% of all their income in taxes under US law. Most of that cash they keep goes into stocks which support business growth, although yes, it does make the rich richer. It also creates new jobs for the poor and middle class though.

Would we all have computers now if it werent for large scale investing the huge corporations (namely microsoft) by the extremely rich?

Here's another question. It has been shown that through certain "loop holes," car companies that make SUVs spared themselves a 1.1 billion tax dept by giving the bill to the American tax payer.

SUV's? Come on now, SUV's are only the tip of the iceberg. We all now that a good enough accountant can do just about anything he wants. A friend of mine with 10 g's of credit card debt used a "loophole" to have it all declared illegal and disbursed. The point Im trying to make is this. Money=Power. With enough money you can do whatever you want. Until you cant take the advantages out of being rich, it will stay that way. And when you take those advantages away, then noone even wants to create new things anymore, which is MUCH worse.

PS: did you know that the auto industry BUYS OUT efficient clean car designs because they make more money on gas-guzzlers? *shoots himself in foot*

At 5/3/03 08:41 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: The problem is not supporting terrorism itself, it's why we have been supporting terrorism and if it's needed or not. Do you think we really need terrorists to fight the Iraqi people for example? What about the Zuraki government? We could have easily taken it down ourselves.

But I digress. I believe that supporting terrorists can have it's benefits when our country is in true danger from another. However, I don't think that oil trade or any kind of trade is worth giving millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists, especially when they are our enemies.

to be honest, its all about diplomacy. These terrorists act like charities, not paramilitary groups. Instead of supporting terrorism, funding these groups looks like foreign aid.

Firstly, it's very pathetic for a country supposedly as "powerful" as ours to have to get on our knees and give money, weapons, and "gifts" to people who hate us just because, like an infant, we can't ween ourselves off the supplies and aid (especially oil) of other countries.

Ach, what are a few million dollars to us? Diplomacy is all about "gifts".

We're not the world's "police man." Not unless you're idea of a police man is an addict who gives weapons to convicts to fight other convicts for him just because he's dependent on the both of them to fulfill his pathetic addiction.

If were not the world's policeman, who else is powerful enough to do it? You see, all these other countries rely on the US to insure international justice, but they wont get their own hands dirty with it. So we do all of the work, get half the credit, and all of the blame. I dont claim that all our "police actions" are justified, but I do claim that noone else has the power to police the world as efficiently as we can.

Anyway, though, this only makes our situation worse. For oil, we support terrorists who hate us, then we have to support more terrorists who hate us to fight the old ones, then we have to fund more terrorists to fight the others. Do you understand what I'm saying? So, we keep getting more and more enemies and we keep making them stronger and stronger until our country is surrounded by those who hate us and by those who now have the ability to attack us. And for what? Oil? Trade? Do you really think it's worth it?

youre missing a point, and that point is this. Part of what we do is create a "balance of power". The idea is that, while our enemies hate us, they hate each other MORE. they spend most of their time bickering amoung themselves, and not fighting us.

Face facts. The attack on 9/11 should have proved that this isn't working. We need to start fighting our own battles and become more independent. We need to find other sources of fuel. We must stop using "trade" as a reason to pathetically put ourselves in the line of fire, and make people hate us and capable of acting on their hate. It's just not worth it.

Hey, if we fight our own battles, then the violence is traced back to us. I agree 911 should never have happened, but funding terrorism is the only way that we can maintain a balance of power amoung our enemies, without making an even greater amount of hate for ourselves. Its a razors edge to walk for us, with plunder on one side and corruption on the other, but noone ever said being a super-power was easy.

money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed
-Funk

wait a sec- so you're saying that its okey for American to bomb other nations (literaly) for ecconmic gain, to protect americans from being "bombed" in the global trade?

how can you be so inhuman? Are you seriously putting a price on human life?

Before I respond to FUNKbrs, can someone please tell me his connection to our war with Iraq and the poverty of our own country? And what the the income of terrorists has to do with it? And intelligence and schooling of the poor in our country has to do with it? And making the poor rich, and, and fighting poverty, and public school systems, and rich people being taxed, etc?

I'm sorry, but you seem to be very confused by my responses, so maybe I didn't understand you the first time.

Are you a former member of the Clinton administration or something Ninja Scientist? You seem to have a lot of info on everything. I am riddled by your long posts.

At 5/5/03 10:03 AM, Dontask wrote: Are you a former member of the Clinton administration or something Ninja Scientist? You seem to have a lot of info on everything. I am riddled by your long posts.

Ninja is just intelligent, unlike a lot of the people he debates against. Hell, if having knowledge makes you a member of the administration, the PC might as well elect a president. "I am riddled by your long posts" just makes it seem as if your too lazy to read.

At 5/4/03 09:54 PM, Jiperly wrote: money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed
-Funk

wait a sec- so you're saying that its okey for American to bomb other nations (literaly) for ecconmic gain, to protect americans from being "bombed" in the global trade?

how can you be so inhuman? Are you seriously putting a price on human life?

If you havent noticed yet, there IS a price on human life, but it is determined in the currency of other human lives. Every cancer ridden child we save through millions of dollars of research means thousands of other 3rd world chilren starving to death every day. Should we cure cancer, or feed starving children? Thats where who has the money comes in. The $ value on human life enters the picture at this point. Different countries have different values for their citizens, but it all comes down to money.

To reiterate Money=Power. Power to save lives, power to destroy them. Power to fly to the moon, power to cure disease. Who has the money determines how this power will be used, and as long as the US has the money, we determine of the fate of the world. We save our cancer ridden children at the expense of someone else having their children die. Either way, children die. Money is how we make sure the children that die are not ours.