A. Blame juimmy Carter, he started this mess

B. regan did a whole lot more than shake his fist.

c. Why don't you quit being so pessimistic, and start blaming the Muslim shit bags who we are after?

Um, InfinITE. Did you look at the link? Acts of terrorism under Carter -- one. By Puerto Rico! Carter was a peace broker, a diplomat, a military man who served overseas with distinction and one the world could respect. Acts under Reagan -- 18. You tell me what he did about terrorism, besides turn tail and run? Acts under HW Bush - zero. Again, a diplomat, a pilot who was in the big war, a man the world could respect.

Regarding "blame". Have you read anything I've written? Yes let's get the shitbags that attacked us. We're kicking the crap out of the the wrong freaking country. Besides, we already had Iraq under our thumb. Let's track down the origin of the terrorists who flew into the Trade Centers and attack there, shall we?

I would like to explain the concept of an "Intelligence Memo" as it was referred too.

Who would like to take a guess at what the "mi" in my nickname stands for?

I will give you a hint: Military Intelligence.

When an Analyst sits down at his terminal and proceeds to check message traffic for the past 24 hours, and sees a report that says "Bin Laden to attack America" it should click in his head that this is possibly grounds for a "critic" (a report that is written that takes precedence above all others and is sent to the Presidents desk within a matter of 10 minutes)

However, if the original report does not specify a date/time or a specific event what are we to do about that? Would you have liked the President to implement the "terror alerts" then? That is what would have happened none the less. The only difference that would have happened on September 11th 2001 is that the terrorists would have proven more successful by getting past a "prepared" enemy (that is how they would have percieved it)

I will associate it like this:

If somebody told you that you were going to get beat up, would you call the police? Chances are no, you wouldn't, why? because you would not have the answers to the questions they ask (who made the threat? when did they say it would take place?) But, then one day you are walking to work and you get "jumped" by the bloods or the crypts, then you would call the police because even though it is too late for you, you still want to see justice for what happened and you don't want to see people live their lives in fear. What you people don't understand about the Intelligence world is that we are only as good as the information we recieve. We CANNOT fill in the blanks and call the President every time.

Oh, and ElectroBuzz,

How can you "kick the crap out of the wrong country" in a GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM? Are you telling me that Iraq is not considered part of our Globe? or that it doesn't harbor terrorists?

I think what electro meant, was that we haven't gone after the countries who played the biggest part in 9/11...namely Saudi Arabia. Since the GWOT started on that day (that is, the U.S. making plans for retaliating), has there been any talk of going into Saudi Arabia? We immediately went to Afghanistan, which is where OBL was supposedly hiding out. Three years later, and we still don't have him.

After it became clear that finding OBL was a little more difficult than perhaps they first thought, the focus was shifted to Iraq. Yes, I agree, that Saddam needed to be removed, but did he have any provable part in the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole or 9/11? Remember, that was one of the major reasons Bush gave the American public for going into Iraq, that Saddam had terrorist ties, which still hasn't been proven. Yet, in the early 80s, we had ties to Saddam, so WTF? :rolleyes:

We haven't gone after Saudi Arabia, which is where 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were from. This article explains it all, I suppose.

"Judge Richard Casey said the president, not the courts, has the authority to label a foreign nation a terrorist, though he said he understood the ``desire to find a legal remedy for the horrible wrongs committed on Sept. 11, 2001.''"

Huh. I wonder why Saudi Arabia is in the clear?



Who is that you might ask? Go here to find out.

It just kinda baffles me that people would much rather question the presidents motives and reasons then just accept that it is A Global War on Terrorism. I will not deny that President Bush has ties of some sort in Saudi Arabia, but this war was waged so that we can help the world remove the threat of terrorists, not just to avenge the deaths of the WTC victims. Therefore we need to go where the terrorists are harbored.

Don't get me wrong, the WTC was a terrible and tragic event and if past presidents would have made more of an effort to focus on the threat of terrorism, MAYBE (me thinking) that event would not have happened, maybe it would of who knows? But now we have a President (competent or not he is still our president) that did something about the threat of terrorism and to my perception has been successful in his efforts to stop terrorism.

Um, MI. You fully credited the lack of attacks on our soil since '01 to the Iraq War. We haven't had a macerena-like dance since the Iraq-attack either, so keep on fighting. Do you understand? The correlation you make is weak. My God, I hope you aren't in military intelligence. Really. When I was in the Army, it was a joke -- you know, military intelligence was an oxymoron. I guess for this administration, who wants to craft their own realities, perhaps you are the ideal man for the job. Sorry bro, but it's true. THINK! But, that's exactly what they'd rather we not do. Hey, any towelhead in the dark will do, right?

Um, yes if I were attacked by Crips (or Crypts --now *that* would be scary) and I didn't know a specific individual, effective retaliation on my part would be sketchy at best and the law would not be able to charge an individual. And no, they wouldn't just lock up every gang member across the nation. That's where intelligence comes in. To carry it further, if I am hit by Habib and I smack Mohammed in the mouth, did I really make an effective retaliation?

Finally, (sigh...) MI, just because something has a name doesn't make it reality. The Harlem Globetrotters really don't play all over the globe. Nor do they trot across it betweeen venues. OK, it's a "global war on terrorism". Iraq is on the globe (hey, how about that!). That's another, um, slightly weak correlation. There are no doubt terrorists in Canada. Canada is on the globe. LET'S ATTACK!!!! ...I was going to use the US as the ludicrous example here, but of course, thanks to the patriot act, we already are attacking ourselves...

The fact of NOT having an attack on U.S soil holds a better argument when it comes to our effectiveness of the war in Iraq. You can trot around comparisons of the wars effectiveness to things like...uh,...lets say the macarena just to spout words out of your mouth, but when you sit back and take a look around (and not hold a bias opinion about the person who waged the war) you will see some sort of connection in why America has not experienced an attack since. You should not attack my profession in the military to try to persuade me to accept your point. I did not resort to calling a ball-less son of a bitch for getting out of the Army before or during the war just to make you see my side of the argument. As for your Harlem Globetrotters relation, do they not travel the "globe", peforming in other countries,(I really don't know, I am not a basketball person at all)
Their tour schedule

Well maybe they aren't traveling to "Canada" right now but maybe someday right?

Carter started the whole Iranian hatred of America.
Assassination of Former Chilean Diplomat, September 21, 1976: In Washington, exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier was killed by a car bomb.
Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the U.S., Iranian radicals seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981.
Domestic Terrorism, January 27-29, 1975: Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar, killing four and injuring 60; 2 days later, the Weather Underground claims responsibility for an explosion in a bathroom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington.
That's four under the "peace-broker". And that's incidents only involving US citizens.
Reagan directed the bombing of Tripoli by manned aircraft. Reagan was a bit busy trying to not directly engage anyone with military force. To do so would place us in close proximity of the USSR, which might be perceived as a threat by them. To judge either of these men on their response to terrorism is unfair at best. Their plates were rather full at the time. Avoiding nuclear war or at least a direct confrontation with the Warsaw Pact was the theme of the time. War by proxy was the preferred method of controlling each other's influence. We had Vietnam, the USSR had Afghanistan. Both sides supported the enemy in each case. Under GHW Bush, we had the Gulf War, which is generally thought of as the source of controntation that lead to the direct attacks on the US. bin Laden isn't exactly a rational individual. His problem with us stems from the decision of the Saudi government to use US-led forces to protect the kingdom and to retake Kuwait. I'm not gonna disagree that the Bush-Saud oil connection might have played a part. Osama thought he could protect the kingdom with Al-Quida. He was snubbed by the royal family and decided that it was America's fault. That's where this whole thing came from. He basically "went postal". The problem is that we ignored what should have been a wake-up call when the WTC was bombed the first time. The blame game could continue to overlap heading back in time. Is it the fault of the EO that prevented assassination of foreigners by the CIA? Perhaps it's the fault of the Crusaders for not wiping out the fledgling muslim religion. Bottom line is, it's not gonna stop; it's here to stay, unless we change our methods and begin what most people view as unacceptable. The best we can do is try to contain it. By the way, what's with the name calling? That's a nice mature tactic - learn that one from the protesters?

So are you insinuating that perhaps terrorism is simply a fashion and that its time has passed? Surely you don't think that had we not defeated Germany we would never have gone to the moon. Thank god we invaded Afghanistan, or the rise in Xterra ownership wouldn't have occurred, under your "logic". Look for coorelations in there someplace. The enemy can't fight you everywhere. How about this for a simplified analogy. Large ships have zinc plates on them. The zinc is more reactive than steel. The seawater attacks the plates rather than the steel. So, even though the ship loses the plates, the ship itself remains unharmed.

A. I was not refering to an attack that occured while Carter was president. Guess you were sleeping in history class on the day he let Islam go to shit, and screwed Iran over, thus throwing Islam into the shit bucket, and allowing radical clerics to gain control.

We could go on about how he catered to the needs of Arafat, and Castro and allowed them to flurish, or how he cratered the American economy.

How about his dealings with N.Korea, yup he hleped them get to where they are today.Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with the North Koreans in the early 1990’s, by which they agreed not to develop such weapons on the condition that the United States give them the very materials and technology to do so.

The C.I.A. under Carter helped to re-establish Somoza's army as a terrorist force against the people of Nicaragua. These "contras" assassinated social workers, doctors and civilians, burned crops, and tried to exterminate any possibility of social reform that the Sandinistas created.

Carter continued to arm Indonesia's army dictatorship as well as give diplomatic support (vetoing U.N. resolutions to end the atrocities in the former Portuguese colony). This war has killed more than 200,000 East Timorese, making it the worst genocide relative to population since World War II. Carter did nothing to pressure General Suharto (Indonesia's chief of state) to end the war. He was an ally and major supporter of the Indonesian military's repression of its own population, as well as the slaughter of the East Timorese people.

Carter declared his support for the Shah of Iran-despite the rampant torture practiced by the Shah's secret police.

Carter secretly supported the genocidal Pol Pot government ousted by Vietnam in 1979.

In retrospect, Carter’s much-ballyhooed “Camp David Peace Accord” yielded as much as anything ever agreed upon by Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

Carter presided over the most important foreign-policy failure in the last quarter of a century.

But hey, its not like he is linked to the oil for food scam.....oh wait, he is...

As for Ronald regan...hahahaaaa.. you have got to be shitting me? Do you hear anything out of Lybia any more?

BTW: I have served in tow "wars".... Jimmy Carter is nothing special, they question is.. have you done any time in the military?

B. Why should we only go after the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11... should we just let other terrorist that pose a threat go free? Oh thats right, we have to wait until they kill Americans before we can do anything...

Didn't you know...thats the only tatic the Left has to use. Logic, hisroty and reason have no place in the mind of a liberal. You have to remember, these are the peopel who are ok with Saddam killing 4,000+ people a month, and rewarding N.Korea with Nuclear technology.

But hey, its not like the backed Arafat..... oh wait.... they did.

infinatenexus,
That's pretty funny

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...ticut_execution

More protestors doing stupid $hit. In this case, the dude actually wants to die, but the loving people on Conn. don't want him to! Errrrrrr. Will people protest about anything these days?

Funny as hell that the idiot Athiest dude didn't have his own way when it came to the Religous Inaguration ceremony. Now I'm an Athiest myself, but that dude just gives us Athiests a bad name. If you don't want to listen to a Religous ceremony, then don't fricken go. Or Turn the damn TV off. Jesus Christ (Pun intended) what an idiot.

InfX -- True, true - namecalling gets us nowhere.
And, hey, in regards to you -- I called ya chief yesterday generically. I didn't want to really potentially insult you and call you "sir"! And MI, thanks for serving, bro. I know the hierarchy of the military doesn't allow for extensive freedom of thought, nor should it, but watch and openly consider what's going on - please. And see how all of us are being deluded by flowery words and icons. I'll do the same from here.

Bottom line, Iraq was already under our control. I understand Karbola yielded some nasty stuff. As I understand it, that had a short shelf life and a limited range of effect, compared to what was pitched to the UN in early 2003. Regardless, freakin' kudos to Delta company for finding it! How about the "mushroom cloud" that Condi and Bush said could come forth from Iraq? Mmm...yeah. All of this expense, effort and loss was hardly worth attacking a country that was already crippled.

Again, I am saying the cause and effect relationship between the Iraq war and the lack terrorism by foreigners on our soil is weak. 93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years! No war. Just think how much better it could be if we addressed the real killers?

InfX, you are doing your best with what you got over there. And for all the folks that say you signed on, well you did -- and war/rescue/whatever goes with the territory. I left after 8 years (10 years ago) -- who knows, I might still get called.
But no one expected 18 month deployments only to return and go back for another 18. The stress on American families is ridiculous. The loss of wages by Reservists is untenable by many. And all of this was determined by a sniveling little fuck who snorted coke and rode on Mommy's apron strings when his time to serve came up. He's too weak to fight and clearly too weak to think.

Bottom line, this war is entirely based on lies. Unless you go with the current reason being spouted (look for version 4.3.2 soon!) And Bush is looking for more conflict, errrrr opportunity to bring freedom. As I've said: we cannot be the world's police. But based on that bizarre inaugural speech, we're gonna light it up all over. The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.

The inaugural speech seemed more fitting for a 30's German Beer Hall. We need to push for balance in '06. Impeachment proceedings after that, based on the WMD fiasco. To state a false, fraudulent or unfounded report to Congress is a felony. And maybe then we can find the real assholes that attacked us!

Amen, Dig, that is what I am saying. Let's open it up. Let's go for the real killers, probably the Saudis. Not some castrated dictator who couldn't even hide himself.

EDIT:
Can we please consider things beyond 0 and 1? conservative/liberal? black/white? christian/muslim? left/right? The world has never been that simple. Generally, breaking it down to that is what leads to war.

And inapplicable statements come from that, infinITE. Let's see, in 5 elections, I voted republican twice, democrat twice and independent once. I actually thought about what was best for my situation and my country. Hey, what say we shoot for a new buzzword? THINK!

Bullshit. Read up on the history of Iran and the Shah.

The Shah was leader from 1941 to 1979. He was ousted in 1953, but got his power back with the backing of...you guessed it, the United States - under Eisenhower.

It really had nothing to do with Carter, other than the CONTINUED U.S. backing of the Shah.

Orlando Letelier was a US citizen? Interesting.

I could not agree with this statement more electro.

What works in countries like the U.S., Canada, England, etc. are not necessarily good for the countries of the middle east. Please don't jump to a conclusion thinking that what I'm saying is that the middle east is better off under dictatorships, because that's not what I mean. I'm saying that countries in the middle east (i.e. Iraq) don't want to be "United States II", and by having us come in with guns ablazing saying, "This is what works for us, so you should do this too", is not the way to conduct diplomacy.

I could not agree more with the some of the points you have presented to the table, I do agree witht he fact that not every country can be an "America II" all we can do now is hope that what we do bring to the nation of Iraq(education, economy, health) does it's intended puposes. We can all argue and call for impeachments but you remember how hard it was to try Clinton (and he did deserve it) The hearings went on for ever and had no result. All it would do this time is drag on for three of his four years, get nowhere and delay the forward movement of the war; then we would be stuck with Cheney in charge if it does happen. I personally have reasons for voting Bush and they have alot to do with me being in the Service (mainly that Kerry wanted to take away our body armor) So what I think we can all agree on though is that there is a big terrorist threat in Iraq right now and if we don't finish taking care of it then we will pay for it later.

Damn, good point, MI! "Cheney In Charge". Sounds like an ABC sitcom.

OK -- GO EAGLES, GO STEELERS!

And since I'm a Chiefs fan, NO BLOWOUTS!

LMAO, you have got to be kidding me? He was only financing terrorism, seeking new technilogy, developing new weapong, and oh yeah... shooting at out planes.


Hate to tell ya, but that comes with the job.

Blame Europe they provided tons of intelligence, and be sure to thank Bill Clinton for crippeling our nations intelligence agancies.

Good, as we should. Would you rather we sit and wait for another 9/11? I would much rather bring the fight to them.

Well impeach these folks as well:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. that is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.Carl Levin (D-MI),Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction" - - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroys his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Sounds good to me, they need a good old fassion bombing anyhow. My neice died in a terrorist attack paid for by th eSaudi Royal family, pay bick needs to be a bitch.

Tell that to the terrorist.

Me too, thats why I didn't vote for Jimme Carter II (John Kerry)

This is not entirely true. Kerry's infamous "I voted for it before I voted against it" thing...

There was an $87 billion bill that Kerry co-sponsored that provided the armor. The bill didn't pass - it would have reversed tax cuts. The $87 billion one he voted against - didn't reverse the tax cuts. The one Kerry co-sponsored...Bush threatened to veto it if it passed.

So while Kerry may have "voted for before voting against", Bush in the same manner, opposed it before he supported it.

But that seems to come with the territory for Bush...be against something until enough pressure causes him to change his mind (Rice testifying, Bush testifying, etc).

Ironically he Q'uran has a system of gonverment outlined in it, and it resembles a democracy.. I guess they forgot to read that chapter.

this is what we as Americans need to concentrate our protests on...Dumb people

Dumb people suck

yeah, here's another...

funny mom

...I say we (us Xterra owners) should start a protest against these people.