for Truth Be Told12/1/2003 c6 
57tofujunky
I'm back . . .
Dang, I left only for a couple of days, and now I have so much catching up to do:
"The US president at the time, Bill Clinton, does nothing."
"Bill Clinton, along with Secretary of State Madeline Albright, decides they cannot charge him with anything and let him go."
Democrats, Republicans - one thing they definitely have in common: They both enjoy pointing fingers!
According to several (ok, make that most, if not all) conservatives, Clinton fueled the rise of bin Laden. Newsmax.com (this site amuses, by the way) consistently feeds these claims to its targeted 'right' readers. I'm not defending Clinton from faults (because he obviously made some) but I do want you to visit this website (especially after I have to swallow the information you sent me from Newsmax): http:/911review.org/Wiki/BogusWarOnTerrorism.shtml
A sample:
"Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism." - 911review.org
"Clinton responds by warning Afghanistan that he is about to lob a few Tomahawk missiles into several Al-Qaida training camps. The camps are empty and the only casualty of the American attacks is a camel."
Poor, poor camel. Damn humans, damn them all! lol . . .
"Here’s the point for the liberals and those who didn’t understand the fundamentalists: the United States didn’t create anything—Hussein or bin Laden."
Both Hussein and bin Laden are vicious monsters, but I do agree with you - US did not create them; although, US had been known to play "Victor Frankenstein" in the past.
-tofujunky
"Hillary has a bold plan to capture the White House." - Newsmax.com
Oh Steve, I hope there's some truth to that 'cause the articles on that site is a tad comical.
Woohoo . . . Hillary for President! :)
57tofujunkyI'm back . . .
Dang, I left only for a couple of days, and now I have so much catching up to do:
"The US president at the time, Bill Clinton, does nothing."
"Bill Clinton, along with Secretary of State Madeline Albright, decides they cannot charge him with anything and let him go."
Democrats, Republicans - one thing they definitely have in common: They both enjoy pointing fingers!
According to several (ok, make that most, if not all) conservatives, Clinton fueled the rise of bin Laden. Newsmax.com (this site amuses, by the way) consistently feeds these claims to its targeted 'right' readers. I'm not defending Clinton from faults (because he obviously made some) but I do want you to visit this website (especially after I have to swallow the information you sent me from Newsmax): http:/911review.org/Wiki/BogusWarOnTerrorism.shtml
A sample:
"Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism." - 911review.org
"Clinton responds by warning Afghanistan that he is about to lob a few Tomahawk missiles into several Al-Qaida training camps. The camps are empty and the only casualty of the American attacks is a camel."
Poor, poor camel. Damn humans, damn them all! lol . . .
"Here’s the point for the liberals and those who didn’t understand the fundamentalists: the United States didn’t create anything—Hussein or bin Laden."
Both Hussein and bin Laden are vicious monsters, but I do agree with you - US did not create them; although, US had been known to play "Victor Frankenstein" in the past.
-tofujunky
"Hillary has a bold plan to capture the White House." - Newsmax.com
Oh Steve, I hope there's some truth to that 'cause the articles on that site is a tad comical.
Woohoo . . . Hillary for President! :)
12/1/2003 c1 4my two centavos
I'll make this short. Steve, great essay and I hope you keep writing. Jago, everyone knows that Osama had everything to do with 9/11. What Reagan did too was the usual maneuver that is common in international politics. As for the link between Saddam and Osama, the only connection they have is that they support the terror groups in Palestine. Those two don't work together even if they have common foes.
If you thought Clinton was bad, you should have seen how silly Estrada was.
4my two centavosI'll make this short. Steve, great essay and I hope you keep writing. Jago, everyone knows that Osama had everything to do with 9/11. What Reagan did too was the usual maneuver that is common in international politics. As for the link between Saddam and Osama, the only connection they have is that they support the terror groups in Palestine. Those two don't work together even if they have common foes.
If you thought Clinton was bad, you should have seen how silly Estrada was.
12/1/2003 c4 Steven Lawrence
Is this what it's been reduced to? James Jago the somewhat-conspiracy-nut, who is now claiming there is no evidence to link Osama with the 1993 WTC attack-something that HAS been proven in court (although Jago believes otherwise) and then goes so far to claim that 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Osama! I mean cmon, is this who your voice is now? And James, that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've heard-"a monumental failre" so he should be disregarded? Well THATS one hell of a way to think.
Gotta love provin' me right about ol' Billy Clinton.
And yes, it was a dangerous move, but it was still smart what Reagan did.
As for a bibliography-there's no need for one...everything I've presented is fact-except an opinion here or there. I don't need to give a bibliography...if you want to try and disprove my facts, go for it. You can't, trust me.
-Steve
Is this what it's been reduced to? James Jago the somewhat-conspiracy-nut, who is now claiming there is no evidence to link Osama with the 1993 WTC attack-something that HAS been proven in court (although Jago believes otherwise) and then goes so far to claim that 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Osama! I mean cmon, is this who your voice is now? And James, that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've heard-"a monumental failre" so he should be disregarded? Well THATS one hell of a way to think.
Gotta love provin' me right about ol' Billy Clinton.
And yes, it was a dangerous move, but it was still smart what Reagan did.
As for a bibliography-there's no need for one...everything I've presented is fact-except an opinion here or there. I don't need to give a bibliography...if you want to try and disprove my facts, go for it. You can't, trust me.
-Steve
12/1/2003 c7 James Jago
'Reagan was trying to set the two countries in opposition—a smart political move with two enemies.'
Also a very dangerous one. If they'd wised up to what he was doing then they might have made amends, and then ganged up on the USA. Reagan would then have been left stuck with no Gulf oil entering his country and probably a few warships blown sky-high by Exocets, or else have the whole world turn against his country by invading both nations solely for economic reasons. That's the kind of high stakes gambling that nobody should be happy to let their elected leader do.
'Reagan was trying to set the two countries in opposition—a smart political move with two enemies.'
Also a very dangerous one. If they'd wised up to what he was doing then they might have made amends, and then ganged up on the USA. Reagan would then have been left stuck with no Gulf oil entering his country and probably a few warships blown sky-high by Exocets, or else have the whole world turn against his country by invading both nations solely for economic reasons. That's the kind of high stakes gambling that nobody should be happy to let their elected leader do.
12/1/2003 c6 James Jago
I still reckon that handing sophisticated weapons to an extremist organisation was a bad idea, but Bin Laden was one of those people that nobody took especially seriously until he actually pulled off something huge- the previous Twin Towers strike was such a monumental failure that he looked fairly harmless. Nobody seems to have had definite proof that he was the brains behind the first attack, or at least nothing that would stand up in court. We aren't even one hundred percent sure that 9/11 was much to do with him, not that there aren't enough reasons to want the Taleban removed from office anyway.
A bibliography wouldn't hurt, by the way.
I still reckon that handing sophisticated weapons to an extremist organisation was a bad idea, but Bin Laden was one of those people that nobody took especially seriously until he actually pulled off something huge- the previous Twin Towers strike was such a monumental failure that he looked fairly harmless. Nobody seems to have had definite proof that he was the brains behind the first attack, or at least nothing that would stand up in court. We aren't even one hundred percent sure that 9/11 was much to do with him, not that there aren't enough reasons to want the Taleban removed from office anyway.
A bibliography wouldn't hurt, by the way.
12/1/2003 c6 Steve Lawrence
James Jago:
"Can anybody guess which country this is? It's not the one you'd expect, seeing it out of context."
Are you implying the United States?
And no, I did not offend any Muslims. The words I put in quotation marks were done so on purpose because it is a loose interpretation of what the word in Islam meant. Find me one Muslim who is offended by what I've written, because it was a Muslim who taught me the words.
-Steve
James Jago:
"Can anybody guess which country this is? It's not the one you'd expect, seeing it out of context."
Are you implying the United States?
And no, I did not offend any Muslims. The words I put in quotation marks were done so on purpose because it is a loose interpretation of what the word in Islam meant. Find me one Muslim who is offended by what I've written, because it was a Muslim who taught me the words.
-Steve
12/1/2003 c5 James Jago
'The rest of the Arab world watched as the atheistic invaders moved onto Muslim land and they became angry—especially the Sunni fundamentalists.'
Can anybody guess which country this is? It's not the one you'd expect, seeing it out of context.
This is actually quite interesting to read, but I wish you'd use your inverted commas less- there are plenty of them that can offend practicing Muslims.
'The rest of the Arab world watched as the atheistic invaders moved onto Muslim land and they became angry—especially the Sunni fundamentalists.'
Can anybody guess which country this is? It's not the one you'd expect, seeing it out of context.
This is actually quite interesting to read, but I wish you'd use your inverted commas less- there are plenty of them that can offend practicing Muslims.
12/1/2003 c4 James Jago
'The Hadith is a book of “laws” in Islam that are not covered by the Koran.'
Writing the word laws in inverted commas probably insulted any Muslim reading this. Not the best way to get people to listen to you.
'The Hadith is a book of “laws” in Islam that are not covered by the Koran.'
Writing the word laws in inverted commas probably insulted any Muslim reading this. Not the best way to get people to listen to you.
11/30/2003 c1 Steve Lawrence
Rastavirgil, let us begin.
First of all, who are you and where, oh where, have you been hiding? I find it coincidental that I had to call the liberals out to challenge me, and I did hope it would be on content. As you could see below, Bane Syndrome attempted that and he didn't fare so well. Also, I do want to point out that nowhere in your review was anything about the content I spend over six chapters writing about which would lead e to believe that I did indeed quash those ridiculous arguements that were floating around on this site.
On to the content of your review (and the lack thereof). You stated that the US didn't sign (what I assume) was a ban to use chemical weapons after WWI. That would lead me to believe that Germany did in fact sign it, along with the Soviets. And we all saw how well that worked out come WWII. So I fail to see the point in that one.
You noted that I've said several times there is no proof there were no chemical weapons-I guess you've been ready the little arguments in this section. Then asked how could anyone support a war on conjecture? What conjecture are you speaking of? Or did you forget what Saddam did to kill the Kurds in the north? Oh...you didn't think it through did you?
You go on to tell me 50% of Americans believe Saddam had a connection to 9/11 and that majority Americans supported going to war. Then you get mad that Bush didn't do anything to tell the American public their beliefs were wrong, therefore automatically making him a liar.
I'm barely able to understand the point there, but I do want to point out that even today Americans still believe Saddam had a connection to 9/11...and although no direct proof exists, it's no something that could be too far off. And frankly, what would it had mattered had Bush told the people they were wrong? The Administration has since admitted there might not be a link and STILL Americans believe a link existed. So what's your point?
And connecting your thoughts on virtue and leadership...let's talk about your hero Clinton. Lying, infidelity, apathy...those aren't virtues of leadership either kiddo. And so begins your hypocrisy. Because you continue with "a war during a recession?" Funny, a Democrat went to war during a depression. And yet more recently a Democrat went to war during a slump in the markets amidst a politcal firestorm involving a pudgy intern and the Oral-excuse me OVAL Office. And do find me where you got that fact about the money for vets being cut, please.
"Im a liberal so if you want to go... Bring it on. I'll be here. and by the way...Im smarter than you."
Cupcake, I've been bringing it for over four months. Me and the other conservatives have virtually destoryed any liberal argument on this site so don't think for a second that I would, in a million years, worry about you. And by the way, you only wish you were smarter than me. Kid, I'll run circles around you so fast your head will spin.
-Steve
Rastavirgil, let us begin.
First of all, who are you and where, oh where, have you been hiding? I find it coincidental that I had to call the liberals out to challenge me, and I did hope it would be on content. As you could see below, Bane Syndrome attempted that and he didn't fare so well. Also, I do want to point out that nowhere in your review was anything about the content I spend over six chapters writing about which would lead e to believe that I did indeed quash those ridiculous arguements that were floating around on this site.
On to the content of your review (and the lack thereof). You stated that the US didn't sign (what I assume) was a ban to use chemical weapons after WWI. That would lead me to believe that Germany did in fact sign it, along with the Soviets. And we all saw how well that worked out come WWII. So I fail to see the point in that one.
You noted that I've said several times there is no proof there were no chemical weapons-I guess you've been ready the little arguments in this section. Then asked how could anyone support a war on conjecture? What conjecture are you speaking of? Or did you forget what Saddam did to kill the Kurds in the north? Oh...you didn't think it through did you?
You go on to tell me 50% of Americans believe Saddam had a connection to 9/11 and that majority Americans supported going to war. Then you get mad that Bush didn't do anything to tell the American public their beliefs were wrong, therefore automatically making him a liar.
I'm barely able to understand the point there, but I do want to point out that even today Americans still believe Saddam had a connection to 9/11...and although no direct proof exists, it's no something that could be too far off. And frankly, what would it had mattered had Bush told the people they were wrong? The Administration has since admitted there might not be a link and STILL Americans believe a link existed. So what's your point?
And connecting your thoughts on virtue and leadership...let's talk about your hero Clinton. Lying, infidelity, apathy...those aren't virtues of leadership either kiddo. And so begins your hypocrisy. Because you continue with "a war during a recession?" Funny, a Democrat went to war during a depression. And yet more recently a Democrat went to war during a slump in the markets amidst a politcal firestorm involving a pudgy intern and the Oral-excuse me OVAL Office. And do find me where you got that fact about the money for vets being cut, please.
"Im a liberal so if you want to go... Bring it on. I'll be here. and by the way...Im smarter than you."
Cupcake, I've been bringing it for over four months. Me and the other conservatives have virtually destoryed any liberal argument on this site so don't think for a second that I would, in a million years, worry about you. And by the way, you only wish you were smarter than me. Kid, I'll run circles around you so fast your head will spin.
-Steve
11/30/2003 c7 C Shot
You did it again Steve, I just cant wait to see what bullshit arguement the liberals will come up with.
~C Shot~
You did it again Steve, I just cant wait to see what bullshit arguement the liberals will come up with.
~C Shot~
11/30/2003 c1 rastavirgil
I must be quick so i will make some points.
First, after WWI, the treaty signed to make the use of chemical weapons-including all forms of poison gas- was never signed by the US.
Many times you have stated that there was never any proof that chemical weaopons did not exist. How could anyone support a war based on complete conjecture?
At the time the US went to war, the majority of the american people did support the war. Howevever, 50% of the american people did beleive that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Bush did nothing to dispell such beliefs. Lying to your people is not a virtue of leadership.
A war during recession? not smart in this case. with all of the money going to iraq one should wonder where it is coming from. half of the money going to vets was cut.
I have more but i can't do anything else right now. Im a liberal so if you want to go... Bring it on. I'll be here. and by the way...Im smarter than you.
I must be quick so i will make some points.
First, after WWI, the treaty signed to make the use of chemical weapons-including all forms of poison gas- was never signed by the US.
Many times you have stated that there was never any proof that chemical weaopons did not exist. How could anyone support a war based on complete conjecture?
At the time the US went to war, the majority of the american people did support the war. Howevever, 50% of the american people did beleive that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Bush did nothing to dispell such beliefs. Lying to your people is not a virtue of leadership.
A war during recession? not smart in this case. with all of the money going to iraq one should wonder where it is coming from. half of the money going to vets was cut.
I have more but i can't do anything else right now. Im a liberal so if you want to go... Bring it on. I'll be here. and by the way...Im smarter than you.
11/30/2003 c7 RCS
Clear and well done. Your point about Clinton having one of the worst records on dealing with terrorism is well made. The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center should have been considered an act of war, not a criminal matter. The terrorists were probably laughing their asses when we responded to that attack with courts instead of soldiers.
Clear and well done. Your point about Clinton having one of the worst records on dealing with terrorism is well made. The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center should have been considered an act of war, not a criminal matter. The terrorists were probably laughing their asses when we responded to that attack with courts instead of soldiers.
11/29/2003 c1 Steven Lawrence
Bane Syndrome:
Here we go.
"One problem with me: The bill was passed. So I guess it didn't prevent 9/11, even if it in theory would."
No, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11 "in theory" because it had it's chance to and it failed. Period. Your assumption is wrong.
"Clinton didn't hate the military, but he did pay much less attention to it. However, not a single division was not ready for combat, despite what Bush and Dr. Rice had the American people believe."
He cut their funding and made it clear he wasn't fond of the Armed Forces-he cut their funding almost in half.
And what division are you talking about?
"One thing: The Contras aren't irellevant at all. The terrorists America was supporting were just as deadly and dangerous as the terrorists that Gipper was busy fighting in Lybia."
The Contras were the lesser of two evils: the worse being the Sandinistas.
"Understandable. But didn't they see the inevitable coming? That supporting radical Islamic clerics with strong beliefs would eventually backfire? The mujahadeen, who perceived secular nations as threats to them and their people, were considered "okay" by Gipper simply because they were focusing on the soviets?"
No, they didn't. There was no reason to believe the Sunnis would act the way they have. Period. Stop looking at the past with 20/20 hindsight! You're being totally subjective, and if that's the case, your argument is full of ignorance of history. The mujahadeen did not perceive secular nations as threats at that time...read the essays. I don't know where you got this from.
"After Gorbachev pulled Soviet forces out from the southern front, Afghanistan was engulfed in a conflict of ideas. Why didn't Bush The Elder come and support the Northern Alliance, who's ideals wouldn't result in 30 americans being killed in 2001?"
Because the Northern Alliance didn't exist. It was a civil war and the UN was focused on Iraq and the falling Soviets. Why didn't Clinton support the Northern Alliance when the Northern Alliance actually appeared?
Here's the fun part.
"Better yet, the Taliban were considered friends of the American people! Just to prove I'm not pulling facts out of nowhere, here are some quotes:"
Lets talk about those quotes. Your first one was from Professor Barnett Rubin, who did at one time or another serve on the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also pro-Taliban Bane. I find it amazing that Al-Qaida was protected and openly supported by the Taliban, and yet Prof. Rubin claims they hated them.
Here's something else from your sourse, Professor Rubin claims:
"Since 1998, an increase in what we may, in retrospect, call relatively small acts of terror traced to the al-Qa'ida organization, did place Afghanistan on the global security agenda."
So I guess the two embassy bombings in Africa is "small" huh? And putting a hole in a Navy ship? At least he admits Sept. 11 was "spectacular." That quote I used came from a speech Rubn gave in Tokyo on December 15, 2001.
This can be found at:
http:/w.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/rubin.htm
As for your second source, well, this was alot more fun. Lets first look at the fundamental problem with your end quote:
"Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of Dr. Rice's NSC, 1996."
This is impossible. Condoleeza Rice was not the National Security Advisor nor did she have an NSC in 1996. That's my first point.
Second point: Mr. Khalilzad was not appointed to the NSC until our curret President took office. So you'll excuse me if I dismiss both of these "sources."
"Of course, the Taliban wasn't so nice after the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds of people."
Yet one of your sources claims these were "small" acts of terror.
"Bill Clinton issued a warning to Afghanistan, saying that you will be held accountable for anything Bin Laden will do, as you are refusing to relinquish him. I think that Clinton should have gone in and gotten Bin Laden, but this proves that he didn't regard OBL as the fuzzy friend of america that some NSC members made him out to be."
I dont know what you're talking about at the end. But so what if Clinton issued a warning? Was he affective? No. Did he have his chances at Bin Laden in the mid-90's? You bet. You've made no point here Bane. And who made Osama a "fuzzy friend"?
I'm going to ask you once to do me a favor: find respectable sources (that are CORRECT factually), make your arguments much clearer, and stop looking at history with 20/20 hindsight.
-Steve
Bane Syndrome:
Here we go.
"One problem with me: The bill was passed. So I guess it didn't prevent 9/11, even if it in theory would."
No, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11 "in theory" because it had it's chance to and it failed. Period. Your assumption is wrong.
"Clinton didn't hate the military, but he did pay much less attention to it. However, not a single division was not ready for combat, despite what Bush and Dr. Rice had the American people believe."
He cut their funding and made it clear he wasn't fond of the Armed Forces-he cut their funding almost in half.
And what division are you talking about?
"One thing: The Contras aren't irellevant at all. The terrorists America was supporting were just as deadly and dangerous as the terrorists that Gipper was busy fighting in Lybia."
The Contras were the lesser of two evils: the worse being the Sandinistas.
"Understandable. But didn't they see the inevitable coming? That supporting radical Islamic clerics with strong beliefs would eventually backfire? The mujahadeen, who perceived secular nations as threats to them and their people, were considered "okay" by Gipper simply because they were focusing on the soviets?"
No, they didn't. There was no reason to believe the Sunnis would act the way they have. Period. Stop looking at the past with 20/20 hindsight! You're being totally subjective, and if that's the case, your argument is full of ignorance of history. The mujahadeen did not perceive secular nations as threats at that time...read the essays. I don't know where you got this from.
"After Gorbachev pulled Soviet forces out from the southern front, Afghanistan was engulfed in a conflict of ideas. Why didn't Bush The Elder come and support the Northern Alliance, who's ideals wouldn't result in 30 americans being killed in 2001?"
Because the Northern Alliance didn't exist. It was a civil war and the UN was focused on Iraq and the falling Soviets. Why didn't Clinton support the Northern Alliance when the Northern Alliance actually appeared?
Here's the fun part.
"Better yet, the Taliban were considered friends of the American people! Just to prove I'm not pulling facts out of nowhere, here are some quotes:"
Lets talk about those quotes. Your first one was from Professor Barnett Rubin, who did at one time or another serve on the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also pro-Taliban Bane. I find it amazing that Al-Qaida was protected and openly supported by the Taliban, and yet Prof. Rubin claims they hated them.
Here's something else from your sourse, Professor Rubin claims:
"Since 1998, an increase in what we may, in retrospect, call relatively small acts of terror traced to the al-Qa'ida organization, did place Afghanistan on the global security agenda."
So I guess the two embassy bombings in Africa is "small" huh? And putting a hole in a Navy ship? At least he admits Sept. 11 was "spectacular." That quote I used came from a speech Rubn gave in Tokyo on December 15, 2001.
This can be found at:
http:/w.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/rubin.htm
As for your second source, well, this was alot more fun. Lets first look at the fundamental problem with your end quote:
"Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of Dr. Rice's NSC, 1996."
This is impossible. Condoleeza Rice was not the National Security Advisor nor did she have an NSC in 1996. That's my first point.
Second point: Mr. Khalilzad was not appointed to the NSC until our curret President took office. So you'll excuse me if I dismiss both of these "sources."
"Of course, the Taliban wasn't so nice after the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds of people."
Yet one of your sources claims these were "small" acts of terror.
"Bill Clinton issued a warning to Afghanistan, saying that you will be held accountable for anything Bin Laden will do, as you are refusing to relinquish him. I think that Clinton should have gone in and gotten Bin Laden, but this proves that he didn't regard OBL as the fuzzy friend of america that some NSC members made him out to be."
I dont know what you're talking about at the end. But so what if Clinton issued a warning? Was he affective? No. Did he have his chances at Bin Laden in the mid-90's? You bet. You've made no point here Bane. And who made Osama a "fuzzy friend"?
I'm going to ask you once to do me a favor: find respectable sources (that are CORRECT factually), make your arguments much clearer, and stop looking at history with 20/20 hindsight.
-Steve
11/29/2003 c7 5Bane Syndrome
How fun. Well, at least you're keeping this civil.
Sorry about the whole Clinton terrorism act, I used poor sources and got my facts mixed up. The specific bill was called the "Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995". One problem with me: The bill was passed. So I guess it didn't prevent 9/11, even if it in theory would.
Clinton didn't hate the military, but he did pay much less attention to it. However, not a single division was not ready for combat, despite what Bush and Dr. Rice had the American people believe.
I'm going to focuse on the cold war, becuase I messed up my entire argument about Clinton's war on terror. One thing: The Contras aren't irellevant at all. The terrorists America was supporting were just as deadly and dangerous as the terrorists that Gipper was busy fighting in Lybia.
America supported the Afghani military to fight the Cold War. Hmm. Understandable. But didn't they see the inevitable coming? That supporting radical Islamic clerics with strong beliefs would eventually backfire? The mujahadeen, who perceived secular nations as threats to them and their people, were considered "okay" by Gipper simply because they were focusing on the soviets? After Gorbachev pulled Soviet forces out from the southern front, Afghanistan was engulfed in a conflict of ideas. Why didn't Bush The Elder come and support the Northern Alliance, who's ideals wouldn't result in 30 americans being killed in 2001? Did we suddenly decide that foreign conflicts were none of our business? Better yet, the Taliban were considered friends of the American people! Just to prove I'm not pulling facts out of nowhere, here are some quotes:
"The Taliban do not have any links to Islam's international radicals. In fact, they hate them," - Barnett Rubin, Council of Foreign Relations, 1996
"They are not into exporting revolution. Nor are they hostile to the US." - Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of Dr. Rice's NSC, 1996.
Of course, the Taliban wasn't so nice after the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds of people. Hrm. And this is odd. Bill Clinton issued a warning to Afghanistan, saying that you will be held accountable for anything Bin Laden will do, as you are refusing to relinquish him. I think that Clinton should have gone in and gotten Bin Laden, but this proves that he didn't regard OBL as the fuzzy friend of america that some NSC members made him out to be.
-Bane
5Bane SyndromeHow fun. Well, at least you're keeping this civil.
Sorry about the whole Clinton terrorism act, I used poor sources and got my facts mixed up. The specific bill was called the "Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995". One problem with me: The bill was passed. So I guess it didn't prevent 9/11, even if it in theory would.
Clinton didn't hate the military, but he did pay much less attention to it. However, not a single division was not ready for combat, despite what Bush and Dr. Rice had the American people believe.
I'm going to focuse on the cold war, becuase I messed up my entire argument about Clinton's war on terror. One thing: The Contras aren't irellevant at all. The terrorists America was supporting were just as deadly and dangerous as the terrorists that Gipper was busy fighting in Lybia.
America supported the Afghani military to fight the Cold War. Hmm. Understandable. But didn't they see the inevitable coming? That supporting radical Islamic clerics with strong beliefs would eventually backfire? The mujahadeen, who perceived secular nations as threats to them and their people, were considered "okay" by Gipper simply because they were focusing on the soviets? After Gorbachev pulled Soviet forces out from the southern front, Afghanistan was engulfed in a conflict of ideas. Why didn't Bush The Elder come and support the Northern Alliance, who's ideals wouldn't result in 30 americans being killed in 2001? Did we suddenly decide that foreign conflicts were none of our business? Better yet, the Taliban were considered friends of the American people! Just to prove I'm not pulling facts out of nowhere, here are some quotes:
"The Taliban do not have any links to Islam's international radicals. In fact, they hate them," - Barnett Rubin, Council of Foreign Relations, 1996
"They are not into exporting revolution. Nor are they hostile to the US." - Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of Dr. Rice's NSC, 1996.
Of course, the Taliban wasn't so nice after the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds of people. Hrm. And this is odd. Bill Clinton issued a warning to Afghanistan, saying that you will be held accountable for anything Bin Laden will do, as you are refusing to relinquish him. I think that Clinton should have gone in and gotten Bin Laden, but this proves that he didn't regard OBL as the fuzzy friend of america that some NSC members made him out to be.
-Bane
11/29/2003 c7 Mbwun
Yeah, we're still suffering from what Clinton did to the military. This was a nice way to cap off the Hussein-bin Laden thing.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
Yeah, we're still suffering from what Clinton did to the military. This was a nice way to cap off the Hussein-bin Laden thing.
~He Who Walks On All Fours