So what has this War on Terror accomplished?

Deliberate, discuss and debate all you want. Read from "blatant Whitehouse propaganda", or blatant liberal cause propaganda, either way, you still have not a clue what is going on, or what has actually been accomplished.

As far as the threat being higher now that war against us has been acknowledged and is being taken to the enemy of America, that only makes sense. You're always more at risk of being stung when you are ridding your house of the hornet's nest under the eave. Once you kill the hornets and remove the nest, though, the threat goes away.

Originally posted by Toltec:

"Stanky speaking specifically in relation to dealing with Castro the US decided to deal with it but not in that
way I know quite a bit about this Stanky so would like to hear what other info you have on this subject."

Um, go here: abcnews.go.com...

About the Nazi's,
"In a shocking expose of American corporate greed, investigative author Charles Higham revealed... that such industrial and financial giants as DuPont, Rockefeller, Ford, Chase Manhattan Bank, ITT, General Motors, and Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis either for monetary gain, or because they were Nazi sympathizers... Standard Oil.. supplied fuel for German U-boats through neutral Spain. It continued providing fuel until 1944 and in the process contributed to the deaths of numerous American[s]... ITT was the supplier of communications and other equipment for the buzz bombs that devastated London... Ford maintained a motor plant in Vichy France that turned out tanks and troop carriers for the Third Reich... Chase Manhattan Bank trafficked in the gold.. [from] dentures and wedding rings from death camps."

Here's a good but long read on the funding and rise of Hitler:
roygato.nachtwaechter.net...

It's all documented and sourced.

Sorry, you'll have to add that .html to the end of the URL

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne:

"As far as the threat being higher now that war against us has been acknowledged and is being taken to the enemy of America, that only makes sense. You're always more at risk of being stung when you are ridding your house of the hornet's nest under the eave. Once you kill the hornets and remove the nest, though, the threat goes away."

Seems to me if the U.S. continues in this manner, then the U.S. will be ridding the world of hornet's nests for the next 300 years. Ooooh, what a solution!

Stanky already read that story and was asking for information on other plans in relation to how
the US had planned to deal with Cuba. Its apparent that this idea was never used, so what other plans were made in relation to resolving the issue present in the US in the 60s? This being evidence that Castro had sent a large number of spies into the US under the guise of being refugees?

Like I said Stanky I happen to know a lot about this, so what else is out there besides this idea some guy had and submitted to our government, that was never used????

I can give only one clue Stanky something was done.

Humanitarian aid to Afghanistan started on day one of the war, with 37,000 humanitarian daily rations airdropped while the attacks were underway.

It fails to say how much of this actually went to the needy civilians. Much of it was sold on, or used as rations by unscrupluous war-lords. (Of course that's just "liberal*" propaganda too, but my aim is to balance to scales a wee bit here.)

*Liberal being a word for those to lazy to actually take on board what people are saying.

The international community has pledged $4.5 billion over five years to reconstruct Afghanistan; $2 billion was committed for use in 2002. Of that $2 billion, $1.3 billion has been utilized or will be available this year.

Great! How much was spent on bombing the place? And where the # does this money come from? Oh national debt that's right. G W B is almost like student with his first mastercard isn't he?

More than 575,000 metric tons of food have been delivered since the start of the war; 1.7 million refugees have returned to their homes. Schools, hospitals and roads have been rebuilt.

How many does that still leave homeless, schoolless (if that's a word I'm not sure), and hospitalless? (I know that definately isn't).

An elected head of government - Hamid Karzai - today works with regional leaders in a transitional government as civil authorities continue to establish control.

Was there any alternative pro-democratic party leader, other than the oil-exexcutive stooge? (I'm not really sure, but I never heard of anyone else in the running, and Joe Mohammed probably didn't either.)

More than 160 countries have issued orders freezing terrorist assets, and others have requested U.S. help in improving their legal and regulatory systems so they can more effectively block terrorist funds. Since September 11, the U.S. has blocked more than $34 million in assets of terrorist organizations; other nations have also blocked more than $77 million.

For this one Id like to pick up on the use of the phrase "more than", its like they're trying to sell me a trust fund or something. And in the rest of that section they avoid saying the word "less" as much as possible, it's like they're allergic to it.

I could go on but I'm bored now.

And not once in the entire document does it say how much Afghanistan actually needs, and how the aid compares. So its not really showing if a good job is being done or not.

It's just propaganda, but then that's what I said before. And if u had believed me the first time u wouldn't have had to read this post.




[Edited on 24-2-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

[Edited on 24-2-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

True, Stanky. It seems thatwe are trying to do the job while at the same time make so-called allies give us the green light. Those that were our allies long ago when they needed us now do not like us and take satisfaction in our problems, and I can't understand why we worry about dragging "friends" in to help us.

The threat we face is not invisible, the question is, who's side is a nation on?

This is not about WW2, and America is not risking invasion, so shut the # up with your WW2 #. I lost family in that war and I am sure you did too, so do not insult their memory with your moaning

The situation was completely different then and you know it.

Excuse me but the only reason things are not much worst that what happened during WW2. Is because the sites initially targeted were not nuclear power plants. And we the US, were able to shut down this countries entire commercial airline system as quickly as was humanly possible.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
This is not about WW2, and America is not risking invasion, so shut the # up with your WW2 #. I lost family in that war and I am sure you did too, so do not insult their memory with your moaning

The situation was completely different then and you know it.

You, are the one insulting the memories of the fallen. As for the situation being completely different, take your head out of your arse.

Originally posted by stanky
Seems to me if the U.S. continues in this manner, then the U.S. will be ridding the world of hornet's nests for the next 300 years. Ooooh, what a solution!

Ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Just because the task is difficult doesn't mean you should be lazy and do nothing. Because of the stupid acts of a few, the middle east is lucky the entire region still exists. Most governments of the world would have probably nuked the whole area if it had happened to them and they had the capability. It's amazing how much restraint the US has used since 9/11.

It's not all about what it has accomplished. It's about standing up for what is right. Terrorists tend to pick on inocent people and the very principle of standing up for the inocents is worth going to war for.

couldn't agree more......

hang on though, er.......what is bombing Iraq going to do to stop terrorism....I mean wont it create exactly the sort of environment terrorism thrives in?

That's true and I am against bombing the inocent population but I am completely for attacking the leaders and the followers of their corrupt government.

yeah.....we should deffinately get rid of them....
hang on though....I mean, after we've bombed bagdad to get them out, what do we put in their place?

I mean, The Taliban are back in Afghanistan (if they're not seeking asylum here in the UK) and you cant bomb a political ideology can you? surely the several million civillian supporters of Saddam are going to be a little hacked off by any government we replace theirs with....
and isn't the country split any way, I mean I thought it was Shiit vs Sunni out there, how are you going to get them to come together?

Then of course theres the rest of the middle east, I mean what about Iran.....If we get rid of Saddam aren't the Iranians going to want a piece of the action.....

hmmmmm then of course theres all the people who do get killed by mistake, They're not exactly going to love us are they...I mean, after you get your family blown up by a country who wants to get rid of the person in power you supported wouldn't you, just thinking out loud here, not really be too fond of them....wouldn't you, say, want a bit of vengence.....by maybe flying a plane into the enemys buildings or somthing?

gosh isn't it all complicated....

I am not much for political thinking so I have no idea how the government can piece the middle east together. However, I do think that we should deal with the problems one by one instead of worrying about them all at once. Also, aren't you thinking hypothetically about the problems to come?

I am thinking hypothetically, but this is somthing we should all be doing.

You have concluded that we need to get rid of Saddam, but you seem to suggest that we should do this and then worry about the consiquences afterwards.

I'm suggesting, (slightly facetiously I admit) That worrying about the repercussions of bombing Bagdad Is the first thing we should do before we consider any form of military action.

Consider this.

We're about to remove a man from power who's killed several hundreds of thousands of people, however, according to Both Bush and Blair pre 2002 our sanctions had contained him and his freedom to mass murder has been pretty much contained.

Sure it still happens, but not to the same extent it once could and did.

Now we must ask whether bombing Iraq and removing him (and thats assuming we can, everyone is talking about this war as though its won, what If, like Ossama, he goes to the hills, and you end up fighting another Vietnam? It happened last time we took him on and we had to back down) Will be better for the people of Iraq than simply leaving him there, or, and heres one to really get your noodle pounding, Making him an Ally.

If we bomb him we will cause wide spread havoc, disease, destruction and further retard Iraqs resources to a point where many hundreds of thousands of people will die.

The country hasn't recovered from the last time we attack, this time it may never recover.

We are about to cause nothing less than an ecological and social disaster that in many ways will destabalise the middle east further than it allready has been.

There are many repercussions to what we are about to do and that is why its so important to have answers to questions about what happens after Saddam has gone, before we try and blow him up.

Unfortunately, for all the talk of WMD's and mass murders, I haven't heard more than 200 words from Bush or Blair on the subject of what happens next.

Thats why so many people are protesting this war, not because they like Saddam, or hate the US but because they don't think we are thinking about what happens next, and if they are thinking about it, they sure as hell aren't telling us.

Saddam can never be our ally. What you are talking about doing is taking a known murderer and putting him in a position to infiltrate the governments that once opposed him. Is it just me or does this give him the perfect oportunity to sieze even more power? Saddam is nothing more than a power-crazed psychopath. He can never be our ally.

keep your friends close and your enemys closer.

Saddam would like nothing more than to have the sanctions against his country dropped, He'd probably leep at the chance to join a country like the UN, and, in doing so might actually come under its influence.

Unlike Radical Fundimentalists Like Ossama, Saddam has allways used theological reasoning to perpetrate crimes based on political ideology, not a simple omnipotent hatred of another race of theology.

He is predominantly a politician. a pretty dispicable one, but one none the less, You suggest that allying with him would give him influence over us, more likely it would give us influence over him, hell he'd probably acceps a US lead government so long as we promised he remained the figure head and was allowed as many rolls royces as he liked.

Psychological assesment, and political assessment suggest he's really only interested in himself any way.

This could effectively end the war with no blood shed and solve the problem of what we do next.

just one of many possible solutions which avoid the war and....oddly enough, the presidents speeches and the press.

If you think for an instant that he would accept any type of US influence on him you are dead wrong. Under many curcumstances Saddam has shown, said, and acted on his hatred for the US. The concept of the US having influence him in any way would, no doubt, infuriate him. If he veiws us as low as he seems to view us then what makes you think he would want to be any lower in a position of polotics than we are. You're seeing the world through rose colored glasses.