[alanmzifa]

..... and more effectively than osama bin laden . the american media doesn't care much about what's happening in the rest of the world - unfortunately this in turn means that americans don't get access to information about what's going on except from the political spin doctors . only 7% of americans have passports - which was a figure bettered by some eastern european countries during communism and is by far the lowest figure for any western nation .because Americans are not , as a nation , well travelled it makes it more difficult for the average american to understand and know his place in the world and the opinions of other states ( friendly and non friendly ) around the world .
it might be important to state that i'm not anti american ( in case some over zealous patriot sees this as an attack on him personally and the motherland ) but i am anti american policy .1000 Iraqis have died for each american serviceman , how many of these Iraqis must be innocent civilians - collateral damage - and how would you feel if for every terrorist killed 1000 americans had to die . it would't take long at this rate to turn a country of optomistic supporters into a united band of defenders from an occupying force .
bush's so called war on terror where he declared ' you're either with us or against us ' showed poor judgement , arrogance and the behaviour of a bully . what would america have thought if another country's leader had made that same statement ? - the american people would have been justifiably outraged .
even in the most western arab country ( lebanon ) america is now reviled - this in turn acts as a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists preying on the disaffected and impoverished in such countries . the gdp of 300 million arabs is only equal to the gdp of spain . the poorest 20 % of arabs earn $2 or less a day . the average arab is not only poor but denied democracy - so without power or the money to control their destiny many take up the gun, or are willing to passively accept anti western feelings .
the route to middle east stability will not be found through military action on far off shores but will be found by solving 3 important problems

1. giving palestinians back at least part of the country they had stolen from them to form israel at the end of ww2 .
2. supporting and helping to promote democracy in countries like saudi arabia and kuwait .
3. helping to improve the wealth of these countries' citizens by buying something from them other than oil ( the proceeds of which only go to a small number of the ruling elite )

so please start the ball rolling by voting for kerry

[Miz]

1. As much as the rest of the world would like to believe it, it's not true that Israel does what the U.S. tells it to do. The U.S. can pressure Israel but that's it.

2. As much as the rest of the world would like to believe it, it's not true that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do what the U.S. tells it to do. Threre's been pressure from the U.S. for years on those countries, and others, to move faster toward some form of democracy. I don't know what else can be done to get them moving except by force...and that, by your own admission, is out of the question. That sort of change has to come from wiithin. Even in Iraq, all the U.S. can do is provide Iraqis with the opportunity to form and then support some form of democratic government. If, in the end, they choose another way, there's not much the U.S., or any country, can do about it but apply pressure.

3. U.S. buinesses, like any other country's businesses, buys products that sell. When a country has something to sell that can be re-sold for a profit, businesses will buy it. If the U.S. government buys oil directly from oil-producing countries (and I'm not sure it does, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the U.S. government buys from the oil companies that have been awarded the oil contracts by the producing country), it's an insignificant amount compared to what the oil companies buy. Oil companies buy oil because they can re-sell it at a profit, of course.

It's regrettable that so many citizens of Arab countries believe their problems are the fault of the U.S. I believe the U.S. is willing to help any country wanting to change to a more demoratic form of government but unless it uses force which you agree is out of the question, that change has to come from within.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by alanmzifa

..... and more effectively than osama bin laden . the american media doesn't care much about what's happening in the rest of the world - unfortunately this in turn means that americans don't get access to information about what's going on except from the political spin doctors . only 7% of americans have passports - which was a figure bettered by some eastern european countries during communism and is by far the lowest figure for any western nation .because Americans are not , as a nation , well travelled it makes it more difficult for the average american to understand and know his place in the world and the opinions of other states ( friendly and non friendly ) around the world .
it might be important to state that i'm not anti american ( in case some over zealous patriot sees this as an attack on him personally and the motherland ) but i am anti american policy .1000 Iraqis have died for each american serviceman , how many of these Iraqis must be innocent civilians - collateral damage - and how would you feel if for every terrorist killed 1000 americans had to die . it would't take long at this rate to turn a country of optomistic supporters into a united band of defenders from an occupying force .
bush's so called war on terror where he declared ' you're either with us or against us ' showed poor judgement , arrogance and the behaviour of a bully . what would america have thought if another country's leader had made that same statement ? - the american people would have been justifiably outraged .
even in the most western arab country ( lebanon ) america is now reviled - this in turn acts as a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists preying on the disaffected and impoverished in such countries . the gdp of 300 million arabs is only equal to the gdp of spain . the poorest 20 % of arabs earn $2 or less a day . the average arab is not only poor but denied democracy - so without power or the money to control their destiny many take up the gun, or are willing to passively accept anti western feelings .
the route to middle east stability will not be found through military action on far off shores but will be found by solving 3 important problems

1. giving palestinians back at least part of the country they had stolen from them to form israel at the end of ww2 .
2. supporting and helping to promote democracy in countries like saudi arabia and kuwait .
3. helping to improve the wealth of these countries' citizens by buying something from them other than oil ( the proceeds of which only go to a small number of the ruling elite )

so please start the ball rolling by voting for kerry

Yes--you're economy is just booming with your socialist government! The reason you Europeans want Kerry is because you know he'll pull the US back down to your level. Misery loves company, if you will. Instead of criticizign us for our successes--you ought to boot out your liberal politicians that are taxing you to death and put some people in that will set up a system to reward your citizens.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Miz

As much as the rest of the world would like to believe it, it's not true that Israel does what the U.S. tells it to do.

They don't have to, Israel has spies in the Pentagon remember?




.

[Bryan]

On one hand you want us to help the spread of Democracy in countries but when we go into Iraq and lose American lives to remove a murdering thug because the corrupt United Nations and their fellow partners in crime like Russia, France and Germany wouldn't do it, you complain that Iraq's are dying. Do you know the background of America and how many people died for us to become a free country and how long that process took? You really should read up on it, you'd learn alot about what it takes to build a free Republic.

In regards to consuming foriegn products give me a break, we consume more products from overseas than any other country. We do more to help other countries than all of the other countries in the world put together and when one has trouble, who's the first one they call for help?

[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Miz

It's regrettable that so many citizens of Arab countries believe their problems are the fault of the U.S. I believe the U.S. is willing to help any country wanting to change to a more demoratic form of government but unless it uses force which you agree is out of the question, that change has to come from within.

i know that america is willing to help in some of these situations and it is much needed , america is by far the most militarily capable country in the world . i beleive that america has built a fantastic military for war situations but are not practiced or used to policing .such is the ( understandable ) pressure back home to avoid american casualties that a heavy indescriminate hand is being used to root out terrorist insurgents and most of the dead are civilians ( each of whom has many friends and relatives ) . so for every innocent killed many new 'martyrs' are created - and so the situation escalates . unfortunately because the uk and america took military action unilaterally and without un support it is now nearly impossible to get assistance from other countries .
i didn't anywhere say force is out of the question - indeed i didn't even broach that issue - but what i think is important is that we in the west support democratic countries in the middle east . i agree saddam was a right b@st@rd but he had no connections with osama bin laden ( who we let off the hook and went on to kill hundreds in madrid ) . our governments in the uk and america have now succeeded in banding together unrelated criminals and insurgents to support a universal muslim uprising tacitly supported by the majority of law abiding arabs .

[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Bryan

you complain that Iraq's are dying. Do you know the background of America and how many people died for us to become a free country and how long that process took? You really should read up on it, you'd learn alot about what it takes to build a free Republic.

you see ,that's the point . to create the american republic americans fought each other ( with support from other nations ) .
in iraq people from outside of
iraq are killing many iraqis ( mostly civilians ) . yes iraqis want freedom - but we've given them a lawless state because of an insufficient military presence and made it the region's magnet for al quaeda supporters and anyone else who wants to give the west a poke in the eye .

there is no comparison with america's war of independance .

[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Yes--you're economy is just booming with your socialist government! The reason you Europeans want Kerry is because you know he'll pull the US back down to your level. Misery loves company, if you will. Instead of criticizign us for our successes--you ought to boot out your liberal politicians that are taxing you to death and put some people in that will set up a system to reward your citizens.

i'm not sure where you're coming from - i live in the uk which has the highest gdp growth of all g8 states ( including america ) and does not suffer from the problems mainland europe does as the uk did not join the single currency some years ago . 5 yrs ago £1 bought $1.20 , 1 yr ago £1 bought $1.40 - now it buys $1.85 which is the best exchange rate we've had for about 10 yrs . i can live with this kind of misery !
and i never criticized american successes in my original post !

anyway , read my original post again as i think you might be answering someone else's by mistake !

[alanmzifa]

well guys - this is it - crunch time - bush can't be allowed to reward his buddies any more . show the world what living in a democracy means - get rid of this dangerous idiot who's done more to put americans in danger than any prevoius president .

good luck

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by alanmzifa

well guys - this is it - crunch time - bush can't be allowed to reward his buddies any more . show the world what living in a democracy means - get rid of this dangerous idiot who's done more to put americans in danger than any prevoius president .

good luck

No--it would be Clinton that put us (and the world) in danger. He was offered bin laden on a silver platter and did nothing. We would have had him before 9/11. Your problem is you read liberal newspapers that distort the truth. Nothing in the middle east has changed in 30 plus years--nothing--in fact, its gotten worse. Something needed to be done. Afghanistan now has free elections. The violence in Iraq will end once people like you stop letting terrorists know they can influence your thinking. Iraw will be a free nation which will lead the way for others in the middle east. If everyone was united to fight terrorism, terrorists wouldn't attempt to influence thought. You and other appeasers who think like you are their greatest ally.

[Mulderator]

Appeasement does not reduce violence--it exascerbates it. If this were the 1930s, you'd be telling us what an idiot Churchill is and telling everyone how great Neville Chamberlain is!

SEARCH FOR OSAMA
Book fingers Clinton
for rise of bin Laden
Author claims ex-prez had ample chance to capture, kill terror kingpin

Posted: September 25, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


President Clinton had more than a dozen opportunities during his two terms to either capture or kill al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden but either refused or was too consumed by scandal to act, a new book claims.

Richard Miniter

Former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and author Richard Miniter also says in his book, "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," that the former commander in chief was most responsible for the rise of the world's foremost terrorist mastermind.

Besides being "distracted" by his sexual scandals, Miniter said Clinton was hampered by "ideology," in that he didn't believe assassinating bin Laden was morally right. U.S. intelligence has said bin Laden's al-Qaida network was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., which killed nearly 3,000 people.

"The Northern Alliance [in Afghanistan] tried to assassinate bin Laden three times," Miniter, who conducted two years' worth of research and interviews for his book, told WorldNetDaily. "But the Clinton administration was opposed to these … attempts."

Miniter said although Clinton eventually signed an order approving bin Laden's assassination, "there were so many bureaucratic restrictions on those orders they were, in fact, meaningless."

"Here's the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, fighting bin Laden, and seriously trying to get him," he said, "but when it comes time for the CIA to brief Clinton [in Washington] about it, they get a scolding: 'How dare you go after him.'"

The former Wall Street Journal scribe also maintains the appearance of U.S. weakness during the Clinton regime led to more terrorist attacks against American assets and, ultimately, more U.S. military and civilian casualties.

"Every perception of American weakness increases recruitment, funding and prestige for Osama bin Laden," Miniter told WND. "When they attack and we retreat, you just embolden [your enemies]. When they get their way, they don't stop bombing, they bomb more. It works, and they just continue the process."

He likened Clinton's behavior toward Muslim terror threats during his administration to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany during the late 1930s.

"Clinton is responsible for bin Laden's rein of terror in the same way [Chamberlain] is responsible for [Adolf] Hitler's rein of terror," Miniter said. "Bin Laden and Hitler are morally responsible for their own actions, but we're responsible for actions we took opposite them.

"Perceptions of weakness, of vacillation, all these things simply encourage the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world," said Miniter.

In his book, Miniter also recounts how bin Laden was responsible for the shooting down of U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993, and how the nation of Sudan offered, on several occasions, to capture bin Laden, who was living in the country at the time.

Following a meeting with CIA officials in March 1996, Sudanese officials "offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to us," Miniter said. But Clinton officials deemed the offer "not credible," so no deal was ever reached.

Miniter's book currently is No. 108 on Amazon.com's best-seller list.

It is people like you, zifa, with your mentality of appeasement that are the most dangerous to the world.

[moonmist]

...........you give the man to much credit, unless of course he did it by accident. I think he has plenty of help

[alanmzifa]

you're a bit of a psycho twat aren't you mulder - all my comments up to now , were not personal but i'm fed up with your childish pointy headed name calling
i agree with you on clinton , he should've got osama but that hardly excuses bush !
is it impossible for you to have a reasoned discussion without streaming vitriol ?
is it possible that something someone else might say might have some truth or is the whole concept of debate lost on you ?

i'm not anti war per se , but i am anti this war which has done nothing to increase the secirity of the world or the region . much of the west's intelligence networks are tied up in iraq when they could've and should've been finishing the job off the in afghanistan / pakistan .

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by alanmzifa

you're a bit of a psycho twat aren't you mulder - all my comments up to now , were not personal but i'm fed up with your childish pointy headed name calling
i agree with you on clinton , he should've got osama but that hardly excuses bush !
is it impossible for you to have a reasoned discussion without streaming vitriol ?
is it possible that something someone else might say might have some truth or is the whole concept of debate lost on you ?

i'm not anti war per se , but i am anti this war which has done nothing to increase the secirity of the world or the region . much of the west's intelligence networks are tied up in iraq when they could've and should've been finishing the job off the in afghanistan / pakistan .

lol, when did mulder resort to name calling?

You do have an attitude of appeasement...and he's correct when he says that attitude causes more problems than it solves.

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Appeasement does not reduce violence--it exascerbates it. If this were the 1930s, you'd be telling us what an idiot Churchill is and telling everyone how great Neville Chamberlain is!

It is people like you, zifa, with your mentality of appeasement that are the most dangerous to the world.

While appeasment has this risk, I do not think that Bush is going about things the right way... but everyone agrees that you must make your enemy feel that it is advantageous to do as you say.

For example in Iraq (ignoring the separate question of motive) it would appear to me that it would have been better, rather than invading Iraq after the deadline, to tell Saddam: "If you do not comply, we shall destroy one of your palaces per week." Such a threat would result in very few civillian casualties, would get the point across quickly and would make the US seem stronger than it does now that they are fighting a ground war in Iraq. This is just my opinion, feel free to discredit the idea.

Alex