News-Record.com

Jack's claim that he'll "run for [his] life if certain pacifists take power next year" rings hollow.

.. but note the wording of Jack's third paragraph - (caps added for emphasis): "[The wold] has SINCE mounted major attacks in Great Britain, Spain, Bali, IRAQ, Afghanistan and other places".

... so at least he admits some truth.

Here's another truth ... the Admin' has been so wrong about so many things ... and that whining has caused the Admin' to correct some glaring errors. Some whine is a good thing

"I, for one, may run for my life if certain pacifists take power next year."

Good riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the back on your way out, Jack.

Well, the GOP cannot win on substance so they cry "FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!" when cornered. Anyone notice that the color code warnings went away right after George W. Bush got re-elected?
Compare the statesmanship of FDR saying, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" with the campaign strategy of "FEAR" being used by McCain and his bosom buddy, "W". Now they are cranking up the smear machine re-sending the email about Obama being Muslim.
Wake up America! The "Jack Glenn" types have had a stranglehold on this country long enough.

He's not crying wolf, he's just lying. He has lied for 8 years, why stop now?
Lied about Iraq, then more lies about Iran which had to be called out by the CIA and NSA before he went and started another war.

Jack seems like a very fearful person. He wants Big Government to protect him by tapping the phone calls of every granny, teenager and grocery store clerk in the country to see what they are up to. He wants to support criminal activity by "loyal telecoms" who disregard and despise the Constitution. I wonder why Jack hates America so much? Maybe he wants a country like Russia, oligarchical and enslaved by the security apparatus.

With people like Jack and his supporters now running the country, our forefathers would wonder why they went to so much effort to defeat totalitarianism in WW2 only to have their pernicious descendants foreswear the Constitution and Republic in favor of cheaper SUVs, more television channels and a desire to hand over their personal liberties and choices to the Great Big Government who will protect them from pimply faced youths on cell phones with warrantless, total phone taps.

What a brave group you Bush supporters are, staying at home, chewing on your nails, afraid of "pacifists", sure that if you just suck up enough to the right-wing ideologues they might toss you a bone.

Too many Rush Limbaugh-inspired armchair loonies watching "Saving Private Ryan" on Saturdays not understanding what they fought for--it wasn't extra cable channels and cheap gas, it was FREEDOM, the thing Jack and his dittohead parrots want to destroy. They suck gas, tooling around in massive, empty SUVs sporting "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers without bothering to support the troops at all, not caring that its THEIR fear and behavior that gets MY SON sent half way around the world to appease the Bush family's sense of outrage at Saddam. What are our Armed Forces fighting for with people like Jack ready to sell out our country to the first batch of nincompoops who tell him to be afraid, very afraid and "we're the only ones who can keep you safe." Wasn't that what the Germans did? Wasn't it Goering who articulated the Bush "be afraid of the terrorists" strategy?
Whose side are you on, Jack? Democracy or enslavement? Go run to Russia or China, Jack. They will like your Big Government, anti-American, anti-civil rights philosophy. You do not deserve to live in the freedom earned by the blood and heroism of people that actually believed in America and its Constitution.

vereise,

This is one of the all-time best posts I have read. Thank you for telling the truth in such a strong but civil way.

I remember your son in my prayers almost daily. One of my grandson's, whom I love as if I had given birth to him and is not even 19 yet, has joined the Marines. I am heartsick because he leaves for boot camp April 14th. Every time I think of this, I think of your son being put in harm's way by a man who has made absolutely no sacrifice for our nation. A man who is not and has never been qualified to run this country. A man who sends other parent's children off to die in a strange land while he sits comfortably in his home, demands more of our country and destroys the freedoms we once had.

May the light of God surround you son and keep him safe.

Civil? Ridiculous.

Since when has hyperbole, name calling, degrading insults, the challenging of patriotism, and nazi references been considered civil.

So Yvonne since service and sacrifice to our nation is apparently a must have for you then I guess you will be voting for McCain? and didnt vote for Clinton... right?

What modern day President has ever not "sat comfortably in the White House" while sending
our troops into harms way?

"What modern day President has ever not "sat comfortably in the White House" while sending our troops into harms way?"

This is merely my not-so-humble opinion. Here goes anyway: George W. Bush.

Anyone who can blatantly send our service men and women into an unnecessary combat situation for financial gain is obviously comfortable with it. Of course Congress is probably just as much to blame. They've done little if anything to intervene.

Thanks verelse, Yvonne, and Bishop. Mick, who do you want to be our next president and why?

Bishop,
The "for financial gain" meme is where I tune out. Just partisan, Move on, BS.

Carol,
At this point it would be McCain as the lesser of the evils. I have felt for some time that we have had a large number of vice president types running for the POTUS. I am not the one who brought up service or sacrifice, etc. Why do you not ask Yvonne? Now I ask you... Did you find verelse's comments civil? What in those statements did you find thank-able?

BTW before you guys blow a gasket... I didnt mean "evil" as in EEEEVILLLL". I meant it as part of the common use of that particular expression.

Interesting comments and well stated. It is a shame that those efforts are not looked at from a valid point of view by most.

Shalom

I do not understand your comments Darryl.

Mick, that's common.

From Hope and Change's website:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Most troops out within 16 months. But wait, if al Qaeda attempts to take over, which they will, we bring them back. Now that makes sense. No mention of Iran taking over, which the very well might.

Obama under Homeland Security:

Protecting Our Chemical Plants - potential terrorism mentioned here. Good job.

Keeping Track of Spent Nuclear Fuel - reports of plants in CT, VT, and CA missing spent nuclear fuel.

Evacuating Special Needs Population in Emergencies - Katrina is mentioned here as an example, not 9/11. (Ray Nagin will head up this effort I suppose). BTW, what about everyone else?

Reuniting Families After Emergencies - Again Katrina used as example.

Keeping Our Drinking Water Safe - an attack is mentioned here, bravo Obama.

Protecting the Public from Radioactive Releases. Obama uses an example of a groundwater leak at a nuke plant in IL. No mention of nukes from terrorists.

Does anyone actually think that the government can protect us from all terrorists in this world, foreign and domestic? Get a grip folks. If a person is willing to die along with their target, they cannot be stopped. The extent to the damage they can create depends on location. I refuse to live my life being afraid that the Islamic fanatics are going to take over the USA. Only a united COUNTRY could possibly take over the USA and "take away our freedom". Please name the country which you fear, not a vague term like our leader uses. The fact is that we are all going to die one day. Live each day to its fullest and stop being afraid of the boogey men or women. If we live in fear, "they" win.

I also cannot help but wonder where we would be today if a "pacifist" had been in office in 2001. Is it possible the 911 attack would not have happened? Is it possible we would not have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives on a war which has gained nothing (if you disagree with this, please list concrete benefits of the war to the people of the USA)

Again another of those posts whose efforts (by the on posting) are not looked at from a valid point (perspective).

Shalom

Good, thoughtful posts, Carol.

The one and only reason I would not vote for McCain, Mick, has nothing to do with his service in Nam. His intention to "Stay the course" so to speak is the reason I have discounted him. We have done basically the same for seven years. How long does it take you to realize it just ain't working?

I never said service and sacrifice were "a must", you did. I said Bush was not and has never been qualified to run this country and he has never sacrificed anything for this country. Prove me wrong.

Considering how upset vereise is, I think "nincompoops" and "dittoheads" are very civil and mild words. Let me ask you, Mick, do you have a child fighting in Iraq? If so, how many deployments to Iraq has your child had?

"Does anyone actually think that the government can protect us from all terrorists in this world, foreign and domestic?"

Let me rephrase that. Does anyone actually think the government can protect us from fattening foods, smoking, sour subprime home loans, sour economy, lead laden toys, Roger Clemens & steroids, high gas prices, and runway incursions?

These are but a scant few contemporaneous issues in which liberals in govt. are actively engaged in the noble cause of protecting the proletariat.

Lead laden toys I can agree with. Most folks including myself don't have equipment that tests for lead. Runway incursions same thing, but I'll save that topic for anyone who is interested.

So we have a congress who promised "change" and the change is they investigate a baseball player who may have gotten a shot in the rump?????

To answer Carols question....no. But I'd rather have our govt. focusing on terrorism than Roger Clemens or smoking in a bar.

"Darryl said:
Again another of those posts whose efforts (by the on posting) are not looked at from a valid point (perspective)."

Shalom

Ditto Darryl W.

Yvonne, I hope you got to see the marines, that were interview on tv last night. Many of them were wondering why it took so long for their reenlistment papers to come. They seemed to be in good spirits and were very well feed. I think you will have a big change in thought after your young man has been in for a year are so. No my children have not been in the service. However I was for 6 years in the 60s,
I can tell you from my service, the biggest problem, he will face is the liberal press and folks like code pink. I pray for for your young man, and all the brave troops, like the one who won a million $ on lotto, while home and can not wait to get back to Iraq. You never read about these people in the liberal papers. Yes I support the war, why, because my fellow country men and women are there. Do I agree with the war. NO. Caro Dunn, I am still waiting for you to tell us about your military experience.
You are always the expert, in the blogs, how good were you in real life.

"These are but a scant few contemporaneous issues in which liberals in govt. are actively engaged in the noble cause of protecting the proletariat."

No doubt the "Ds" are clueless ... but the "Rs" are equally so, and it be nice if folks could see past the "My Parties BETTER than yours" Baloney.

For example, we had a couple years of "Impeach him for having sex in the oval office" .. yet we also hear how there was no strong reaction to the "1993 WTC, which was handled like a bank robbery, our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the late 90's, and the USS Cole in 2000."

Well where were Newt and Tommy? We know Newt was having his own affair while Congress was trying to do political damage. Why weren't they "focusing on terrorism" ??

They are both BAD and DANGEROUS - and i'm really tired of ... well to paraphrase an old dog food commercial:

My Parties BETTER than yours is
My Parties BETTER than yours
My Parties BIGGER, STRONGER FASTER
My Parties BETTER than yours!

"Yes I support the war, why, because my fellow country men and women are there. Do I agree with the war. NO".

You'll never accept this, doggie, but that is how 95% of Americans feel.

I do not support the war, I do not support what our troops are asked to do. I am concerned about our military personnel. Many are there by their own choosing, many are not. While I have no military experience, I do have the ability to read and see. Again I ask, show me the benefits which have come from this war. Please, I beg of you...list them for me.

I tried to provide a list, but it was too short.

“(if you disagree with this, please list concrete benefits of the war to the people of the USA)”

Hello Carol nice to still see you posting. I have to say first off I wasn’t aware that for the USA to do something we were to get something in return. Just a couple of examples, WWII what benefit did we get, we sunk a lot of money into the Marshall Plan, not to mention the Berlin Airlift and we are still there and what did the people of the USA get from that? What about all the money going to Africa for AIDS for a preventable disease, what do we get from that? Tsunami relief any benefit for us? The list goes on but you get the point.

However in answer to your question the concrete benefits of the war in Iraq to the people of the USA is this:
Libya. Libya has been an "outlaw nation" for decades. Kaddafi has long been a major friend, supporter, and sponsor of terrorism, and sought weapons of mass destruction. But suddenly right after our invasion of Iraq Libya renounced its entire WMD program, as well as pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am flight 103 as well as UTA Flight 772. Not to mention they are now trying to normalize relations with the US and the European Union. Also on October 16, 2007 Libya was voted to serve on the United Nations Security Council for two years starting January 2008. The benefit for the American people: the likelihood of another Pan Am 103 risk goes down, the terrorist will not longer be sponsored by the state.
Lebanon. The Lebanese are finally standing up for themselves and demanding that the Syrians get the hell out. The Syrians withdrew. Although I will say it did help Lebanon when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and that led to a battle with Israeli. The benefit for the American people: hopefully a more stable Lebanon with less terrorism coming from that part.
Syria has long been the quietest troublemakers in the region. They've been major sponsors of terrorist organizations, they've occupied Lebanon for decades, they gave shelter to many of Saddam's minions, they've trained and supplied many of the "insurgents" in Iraq. But they did pull out of Lebanon. And they did turn over a bunch of Bathist of the old Saddam regime to the new government. I do believe that if American politicians had stood strong over the Iraq War, Syria would be cooperating more, however now they don’t really have to knowing that nothing will happen to them.
Iraq: With a stable Iraq government in place we would have one stable state in the region, this would led to a domino effect for the whole region. Why do you think Iran and Syria do not want a stable Iraq? That would put pressure on them to reform there own countries. Another benefit for the American people we now know there aren’t any weapons in Iraq, Saddam is no longer around to pay terrorists’ families to be suicide bombers in Israel, not to mention sponsor terrorist for attacks on American interest. Also many people seem to forget that the only reason inspectors were in Iraq was because of a military buildup. We had thousands of troops, fighter planes, warships etc. etc. That was a big cost for “containment”. Also other then the fact that Saddam supported terrorism, paid the families of suicide bombers, had a terrorist training camp Salman Pak, had WMD, used them on his own people, invaded two countries, tried to assassinate a former US President and refused to abide by the UN Resolutions, beside all that we had the Russian government warning us that Iraq was planning attacks, Putin stated: "After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests." Not to mention that there in the Clinton's Justice Department prepared indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, "Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
So we lost 3000 people in a terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden was guilty of the deed. According to an indictment he and his group were working on developing WMD with the government of Iraq. Then you have the Russians telling us that Iraq was planning attacks and Saddam was refusing to abide by a cease-fire agreement. So you might not understand where Iraq falls into the WOT but I do. After the attacks on 9/11 we could not take a chance that Saddam was arming al-Qaeda with WMD. So those would be the benefits I believe came from invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.

“understanding what they fought for--it wasn't extra cable channels and cheap gas, it was FREEDOM, the thing Jack and his dittohead parrots want to destroy. They suck gas, tooling around in massive, empty SUVs sporting "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers without bothering to support the troops at all”,

Well let me being with I don’t own an SUV, I actually drive a 1990 Honda with 300,000 miles on it. I have never watched Saving Private Ryan nor do I listen to talk radio (don’t get AM reception in the car). I have a bumper sticker and I do support the troops. My daughters and I have adopted a solider and platoon every year since the war started. So with that out of the way, first off if you believe that WWII was about “freedom” I have some swampland I could sell you. Secondly if you really believe that there isn’t a group of terrorist that want to kill as many Americans as they can on American soil I suggest you go to New York City and look at where the Twin Towers once stood or stick you head in the sand and do nothing like previously administrations and see what that gets ya.

“its THEIR fear and behavior that gets MY SON sent half way around the world to appease the Bush family's sense of outrage at Saddam.”

I was unaware that a draft had been put in place. Was your son drafted or did he sign up of his own free will? When did he sign up before or after the Iraq war? I see that you don’t agree with what your son is doing, but I can say I am thankful for what he is doing. And before you ask, no my kids are not in the military they are too young but I am encouraging them to join and requiring they take ROTC in high school.

“What are our Armed Forces fighting for with people like Jack ready to sell out our country to the first batch of nincompoops who tell him to be afraid, very afraid “

In my opinion what our Armed Forces are fighting for is stated in my post to Carol. However I do not think I am not selling out my country to a batch of nincompoops who tell me to be afraid, but at the same time I have to give them credit for actually trying to do something to protect me, which is their main job according to the Constitution, you know that document you keep speaking about. I can say unlike previously administrations that had a chance to protect this country but decided to turn down Bin Laden. “During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Here is the link where you can listen to Clinton stating that fact: http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3 so maybe like you he didn’t think we had anything to be afraid of. I have to wonder if the “jumpers” from the towers on 9/11 felt the same way.

What benefit did we get from WWII, the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift (all interelated of course)?:

Twenty years of World Dominance.

==

Concrete benefits of the war in Iraq:

Libya. I'll give ya that one.

Lebanon / Syria and Iraq .. all still WAY too volatile to declare.

==

"Saddam was arming al-Qaeda with WMD". Not from what I've read. Saddam was interested on Saddam only .. any connection with al-Qaeda was coincidental and for the expressed interest of Saddam.

==

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America ..."

I do not know the exact date you have quoted trish, but early in 1996, bin Laden was living in Sudan, having given up all dreams of more than a farmers life. Whatever connections he had with Radical Islamic, was through the Egyptian Islamic Jihad .. which had nothing going on concerning America .. only overthrow the Egyptian Government and replacing it with an Islamic State.

After the Luxor massacre (1997) .. things changed.

What benefit did we get from WWII, the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift (all interelated of course)?:

Twenty years of World Dominance.

==

Concrete benefits of the war in Iraq:

Libya. I'll give ya that one.

Lebanon / Syria and Iraq .. all still WAY too volatile to declare.

==

"Saddam was arming al-Qaeda with WMD". Not from what I've read. Saddam was interested on Saddam only .. any connection with al-Qaeda was coincidental and for the expressed interest of Saddam.

==

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America ..."

I do not know the exact date you have quoted trish, but early in 1996, bin Laden was living in Sudan, having given up all dreams of more than a farmers life. Whatever connections he had with Radical Islamic, was through the Egyptian Islamic Jihad .. which had nothing going on concerning America .. only overthrow the Egyptian Government and replacing it with an Islamic State.

After the Luxor massacre (1997) .. things changed.

“do not know the exact date you have quoted trish”

I quoted Bill Clinton, those were his words.

“but early in 1996, bin Laden was living in Sudan, having given up all dreams of more than a farmers life”

Really so he was just sitting back feeding his chickens huh? Well why they was the US government so hot to get him kicked out of the Sudan if he was as you said “given up all dreams of more than a farmers life”? From President Bill Clinton’s own words: “They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, THOUGH WE KNEW HE WANTED TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA*. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.” (*caps mine)

“Al Qaeda vociferously opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on what it considered the holiest of Islamic lands and waged an extended campaign of terrorism against the Saudi rulers, whom bin Laden deemed to be false Muslims. The ultimate goal of this campaign was to depose the Saudi royal family and install an Islamic regime on the Arabian peninsula. The Saudi regime subsequently deported bin Laden in 1992 and revoked his citizenship in 1994.

In 1991 bin Laden moved to Sudan, where he operated until 1996. During this period, Al Qaeda established connections with other terror organizations with the help of its Sudanese hosts and Iran. While in Sudan, Al Qaeda was involved in several terror attacks and guerrillaactions carried out by other organizations. In May 1996, following U.S. pressure on the Sudanese government, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan where he allied himself with the ruling Taliban.” http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

“Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
Also “In 1991, bin Laden moved the headquarters of al-Qaeda to Sudan, where a militant Islamic government had come to power. In 1993, a bomb exploded in an underground parking garage at the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring another 1,000. The attack was linked to al-Qaeda.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

And since I will hear that NRO is biased here is a report from CBC of Canada.

"In 1994, Saudi Arabia stripped bin Laden of citizenship for alleged terrorist links and his family disavowed him, at least publicly." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/

As you will note Bin Laden was in Sudan in 1991 yet in 1994 he had alleged terrorist links, way before 1996.

But again I ask you if he was no more then a farmer, why the heck did the US want him out of Sudan so bad, I mean really how much of a threat could a farmer be for the US to go to all that trouble?

""Saddam was arming al-Qaeda with WMD". Not from what I've read."

Maybe that is because you have only read one side? But you have your beliefs and books on the subject and I have mine. I agree to disagree and really have been over this subject and posted so much that showed valid proof that nothing will change your mind. I agree to disagree on that point.

"Saddam was interested on Saddam only .. any connection with al-Qaeda was coincidental and for the expressed interest of Saddam"

Yes because Saddam was just some poor farmer with no means (like billions in oil for food profit) like you believe Bin Laden was? He was no threat at all but for some reason Clinton found in necessary to bomb the crap out of him repeatly. He only cared about himself he saw no reason to invade two countries or are you saying that for some magically reason (like maybe old age) he decided to play nice with the rest of the world? But wait why then did we have to have a military buildup before he let the inspectors back in? I guess he was just bored and like the atttention?

"Lebanon / Syria and Iraq .. all still WAY too volatile to declare."

Yeah but if Carol can purpose a hypotheical question of "I also cannot help but wonder where we would be today if a "pacifist" had been in office in 2001. Is it possible the 911 attack would not have happened?" I suppose I can have the same hypothecial solution as what would these countries now be if we didn't have a presidental candiate stand up and say "WRONG WAR" and run on that ticket because he had nothing better to offer? Just suppose if the war had support like German in WWII, oh and by the way do you know when the Marshall Plan was thought up and the reason why? Almost two years after the war ended and to repel communism. And look at Germany and Europe now. Huh another hypo, I wonder what would have happen to Germany and Europe if a presidental canidate campaigned on "WRONG WAR" theme during that war.

From your first link, Trish .. at the top:

"Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden to consolidate the international network he established during the Afghan war. Its goals were the advancement of Islamic revolutions throughout the Muslim world and repelling foreign intervention in the Middle East. "

Repeat: "repelling foreign intervention in the Middle East".

==

I said I didn't know the date of Clintons speech, Trish .. nor did you provide it. I said 1996 was a pivitol year. Again from your first link:

"After moving to Afghanistan, bin Laden escalated his anti-American rhetoric. In an interview with the Independent in July 1996, bin Laden praised the Riyadh and Dhahram attacks on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, saying it marked “the beginning of war between Muslims and the United States.”

... but his "declaration of jihad against the Americans" was about "occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques (Saudi Arabia); expel the heretics from the Arabian Peninsula.”

==

Further in the link: bin Ladin "advice to the Americans to withdraw their troops from Saudi Arabia.”

That was his beef - getting the USA out of Saudi, where they remained on "Holy Ground" after the First Gulf War was over.

Interestingly, Bin Ladin offered to use al Qaeda .. "the base" .. to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam during the First Gulf War. Prince Faud (?) - head of Saudi's defenses laughed at Osama .. and brought in the Americans .. so there had to be at least some "Honor against the Insult" going on in Osama's mind.

==

As for why the USA wanted him out of Sudan ...

Osama "has publicly said that his soldiers fought U.S. troops during Operation Restore Hope in 1993 in Somalia, where U.S. officials believe he supplied weapons that shot down American helicopters and where 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in hand-to-hand combat.

Bin Laden remains Washington's leading suspect in the June 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, bombing attack in which 19 U.S. servicemen were killed."

So did the USA "want" Osama .. sure .. but remember (or learn) .. Osama was a wacko billionaire that spent his nights sleeping inthe desert covered with sand to keep warm. He was also a bragart who took all the credit he could, regardless of his actual deeds.

" .. because Saddam was just some poor farmer with no means (like billions in oil for food profit) like you believe Bin Laden was"

bin Laden's farmer days were relatively short, and at the time he was not poor. He only became poor after the Saudi's cut him off, at which point the Sudan had no further interest in Osama - and the Sudanese g-men expelled Osama and left him as poor as a Mosque Mouse - so Osama went back to his "Glory Days" .. living in the caves of Afghanistan.

==

"Clinton found in necessary to bomb the crap out of him repeatedly" ...

WAIT ... I though Clinton was guilty of "Letting Osama Reign Free!

Regardless .. all that was post Sudan.

==

As for Saddam .. no, he did not "for some magically (sic) reason (like maybe old age) ... decided to play nice with the rest of the world" .. by 9-11 Saddam was spent and doing a bravado dance with WMD's - using the threat to hold off his enemies (namely) Iran.

"Why then did we have to have a military buildup before he let the inspectors back in?"

By 9-11 Saddam was spent and doing a bravado dance with WMD's - using the threat to hold off his enemies (namely) Iran.

“In 1993, a bomb exploded in an underground parking garage at the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring another 1,000. The attack was linked to al-Qaeda.” ...

... but the attack was not linked to Osama. "al-Qaeda" had many cells.

Also most interestingly, these cells were not connected. They were a bunch of small not-connected groups - common vision (a Holy World), but they didn't even know the others existed ... until after the 1997 Luxor massacre .. when the Egyptian government rounded up the Egyptian Islamic Jihad .. put them all in the same jail, where these people of common vision met each other and spent months ... between dates with torture .. discussing Islamic Religion and It's Place In The World ... AFTER WHICH .. al Qaeda became a true international threat ... albeit still only a few thousand strong .. but a highly committed few thousand who, after all had GOD On their Side!

We Square now, Dahhhling?

One more thing, Trish.

The world was united that something had to be done about Osama ... even Carol and I agree ... it was the foolish distraction into Iraq that has us all so upset ...

Speaking of the Marshall Plan .. wasn't that about getting destitute people - and potential commie converts - back on their feet again? I mention the real power of providing a simple well and operating sewer system - ideas provided to me by military men - and all I hear is "har-har-har" from - well maybe not from you - or maybe from you I do not recall - but here's sage (paraphrased) advice from 1825:

War is a merely an expansion of a political policy that is not working. After the war is concluded, meaning after you have removed from the enemy the ability to respond aggressively .. there still remains the need for a working political policy.

... and if you get a moment, please reconcile:

"I wasn’t aware that for the USA to do something we were to get something in return .. . what benefit did we get, we sunk a lot of money into the Marshall Plan .. what did the people of the USA get from that .. "

and

"by the way do you know when the Marshall Plan was thought up and the reason why? Almost two years after the war ended and to repel communism. And look at Germany and Europe now. Huh ... "

--

(just pickin on ya luv)

Trish disappears

Yvonne,
No, no kids in service. However, this fact does not give Verelse an open field to degrade others, call others patriotism into question or call names. Nor does it make his/her comments any less degrading. Sorry. Do I read and listen more intently... yes.

Carol, No answer to any of my questions?

Darryl, your comments "as is" still make no sense to me. retyping them "as is" didnt help.

"Trish disappears"

Not sure if you will see this, but I disappear because I hmm have a life, sorry I do not have time to argue with you. I had a major paper to get done, 2 test to study for and I am in the process of trying to learn German.

I actually only intended to answer Carol's question. As I have already told you, I agree to disagree what more is there to say?