SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (172803)10/18/2005 9:30:51 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
1. AQ will do things in their own time. Since 911 they've spread out to more countries and apparently work independently of the head guy whoever he may be.

2. Then check the figures if you don't believe that Bush has turned Afghanistan into the world's premier narcostate. Where in the world do you think all that drug money goes to? Some of it gets funneled to terrorists so of course it's relevant to terrorism. Drug trafficking also destabilizes the government which makes civil war and the rise of terrorism even more likely.

3. The Brits, for the umpteenth time, want to pull troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan to prevent civil war. That was probably before they had to attack the police station to spring their troops.

4. DEFINE Islamo-Fascism. Just as I thought, you speak big words but have no idea what they mean. Republicans cheer with childish glee at the production of tactical nukes and nukes floating in space. They make IEDs look like a day in the park.

5. No. Starting and staying with negotiations for A DECADE is the big deal in the Libya situation. Note that Bush is also trying to negotiate with Syria. Whatever happened to invasion?

6. The rightwing is a dangerous, fascist movement in the US of A.

8. Did you even read the ILA? Did you see Clinton lie about Iraq and invade it? Nope? Then what you said is a lie.

Saddam accounted for his weapons by letting the inspectors destroy them...in the 1990s. For the umpteenth time, if Bush had EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMDs he wouldn't have had to manufacture evidence AND he wouldn't have had to go after CIA NOC Plame. Get it?

Wrong. Bush Sr. saw TANKS on the border and then said the US wouldn't get involved in arab-to-arab conflicts.

Then you agree that Bush Sr. is a war criminal and should be in the dock with Saddam during his trial in Baghdad. He is just as responsible as Saddam for the Shiite rebellion and all those mass graves. He encouraged them to rebel, he allowed Saddam his weapons and then he stood by and did nothing.

Oddly enough, this event supposedly radicalized Wolfowitz who would get stupider and stupider from that point onward and finally lead us into a war based on ridiculous lies.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News