How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Remove all ads!

Well, it doesn't seem all that different to me. Either way the Afghans have a crappy life, with or without the Taliban.

 

Well, I think what Prozac was pointing on was the difference of beeing killed as a civvie in a warzone or beeing accused of having violated the law, beeing trialed and punished. And that is IMO indeed a significant difference.

But I mainly agree, but I'd like to clarify: the afghans had a crappy life with and a differently crappy life without Taliban.

 

Maybe what you say Chandos is true and these poll outcomes are being generated by this fear, but most USA citizens fail to see that the actions of their goverment (and i accuse only the goverment not the people) is a very sure path to have another attack against their nation and more specifically against innocent people, because Bush and his gang are very well protected and that is the reason they talk tough.
Maybe it is time for the people of USA to think WHY do these nations hate us and try to take a peacefull step towards peace and prosperity. And if they see this point of view they will understand that no one is sinless (except god) and furthermore that some people in their goverment think they are gods (therefore they are always right) meaning they are dangerous to everyone and primarily to the USA not to mention other countries or regions or continents

Maybe to you or a European citizen this means the return of the Dark ages or something equally bad.
But they were following Saria the islam law and they had decided to live under that law in his full power. So even if you don't like it or me they made a choice and this choice (because Taliban had a large support from the people when they started to take control) gave them peace. To us this may seem trivial but for a country being tormented by war for 80 continuous years it is a big deal. And as i said Sharia was their choice if they did not like it they should have not supported the Talibans when first appeared.
But to get back to my point even now these laws of the Quoran are applied and especially to the weaker members of the society (women, children, old people) so what do we have now;
We have a country that is divided in regions, which regions are ruled by a warlord each and different laws apply to each region according to the whims of the warlord. We have these warlords to try to come up with some money for their bank accounts (ups i mean people ) and their easiest way to do this is to start again cropping this white poppy, which is the main substance for heroin skyrocketing its production. Furthermore they use that old tactics of the feudalistic system where whichever caravan or group of people passes from their territories must pay a tribute or die. Women do still wear this burga and thiefs still lose their hands. Not to mention that from a reportage in TV news they still kill women that conducted adultery with rocks and stones and guns. I don't know it for sure (since i haven't see something like that with my eyes after Talibans) but this channel is state channel and is very carefull at what it says.
So now tell me are they somehow better than their previous situation; I think not and i fear that this is not the last we heard from Afganistan

 

They lived by the Sharia and beyond. You're acting like the entire population was living happily under the rule of the Taliban. Then how come i saw all those cheering people in the streets when the Americans kicked their ugly asses out of Kabul ?

Even the ayatollah of Iran, who may be considered one of the most conservative islamists, said openly that the taliban's way of living by the q'uran was an outrage. And you're defending their way of life ? Or try to make it sound that life wasn't that bad in Afghanistan ? That things could be worse ?

You gotta be joking me. That's the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time.

Shame on the US for getting rid of such a fine regime, under which Afghanistan prospered like noone has ever prospered before. Shame on the US for endangering the stability in the region. Shame on the US for taking away a perfectly healthy atmosphere in a country where everyone was merry and gay.

 

Mithrantir - Doesn't it seem odd how at selective times the government will suddenly post warnings that attacks may be about to happen? (we just had one). Then nothing happens and nothing more is said in the news. It is the opinion of at least a few of us that the Bush gang is using this to keep the fear factor going.

It may sound strange but after the phony WMD in Iraq I would not put it past these guys to be reminding Americans about the "war on terror." Americans might forget and begin to focus on something like how poor the economy is and how much worse off they are now than they were before the 2000 election.

Not to get off topic but I'm glad that we at least chased Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go after Bin Laden almost regardless of where he was, IMO. But that is a part of what is happening in the big picture: No Bin Laden, no WMD, no democracy for Iraq, for remember that democracy was "going to spread like wildfire through the Middle East" once it was established in Iraq. Fat chance.

 

A bit off topic, but:

@ Chandos the Red - Coincidentally, on T.V. this morning, I saw an interview with a terrorism expert from Harvard. He thinks that the reason that there hasn't been another attack in the U.S. is because the terrorists are going to wait untile the U.S. fully implements their new security measures, and then very carefully review those measures for weaknesses. Once they done that, they will plan their attack and then strike. It could be years before anything happens.

More on topic, and going back a few posts, I think the U.S. would almost be better off if they didn't find any WMD's. That way, they can stick to their story that that acted on bad information, and nobody could accuse them of planting the WMD's.

[ August 06, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

The neocons are eagerly working to eliminate the remaining dissenting voices in the US gvt: Not Iran is next, Powell is.

Check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

 

This is a nice, provocant view on the attempts for justification of the invasion of Iraq:

Who cares if Saddam was a right target in the war on ... terror ... he was an a** anyway, right?

 

Wow, you guys have been reduced to quoting editorials from the NY Times and the Boston Globe. The two most liberal, socialist, anti-Bush newspapers in the U.S.

Bravo.

 

@ Jack

True, very true. I guess you could call them the "Neolibs"

 

Don't worry guys, there is still The Fox "News" channel.

[ August 08, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It is a good thing that Fox News exists. Now they may go overboard, but they have shown the media (through ratings) that the public is no where near as liberal as they thought. In the long run this will force the media more towards the middle or they will lose even more of their influence.

 

The Great Snook - This is way off topic. But I would like nothing better than to discuss the role of the media and if it should matter to it if the population is conservative or liberal. Open a thread on this topic and I'll respond.

 

Jack Funk,
maybe that's because we are liberal, socialist, anti-Bush ... and really there are reasons to be - it's not because I'm jealous he got president, and has the job that is rightfully mine - you know, it should be ME ****ing up the middle east, and because he has all the fun I bash him wherever I can ... and when I find an adequatly acidic article on Boston Globe or NY Times, or the british leftist Guardian I just *have to* post it And so I reduced myself to posting leftist poison here

Worse Jack, the evil has spread - critical, unpatriotic and insubordinating articles can today even be found in the staunchly conservative Washinton Post or sometimes the Wall Street Journal*!
So even a staunchly pro-bush position can't eternally keep people from questioning one or two of the things the jolly crew in the whitehouse did in the last two years. The questions are there, some only ask more silent - of course - not so on FOX.

* No link, as I only read that in print, sorry ...

 

Maybe this can shed a little light on, at least, my problem with Bush and goons:

http://www.cdi.org/polling/22-bush-international-opinion.cfm

It is worth a read and from this pretty interesting site.

 

@Prozac

The "stauchly conservative Washington Post"?!? Conservative? The Washington Post? If you had said the Washington Times I would understand, but there is NOTHING conservative about the Washington Post.
As far as the WSJ is concerned, they go for balance on the editorial page.

Otherwise your rant was fine. I guess.

Are you guys expecting me to quote Rush now?

 

Jack Funk - It depends on where an individual's outlook is centered. Would you consider the democratic party to be too liberal? I suspect you would. I left the democratic party several years back because I thought it was too conservative and not liberal enough. And my feeling has not changed. The same with the press. For me, The Washington Post is just a mainstream paper that is too luke warm on the issues. The NYT is a little more liberal. The WSJ is way too conservative and the editorial page is way out there on the right fringe. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure yours is different.

But the real issue here is the media and the war in Iraq, and WMD that were never found. The media has done OK with keeping some pressure on the Bush gang to make good on its claim, but overall the media has really gone along with the war itself.

The result is that the myth that Bush was a straight shooter with the American people has gone down the drain. But for the most part a majority of Americans still support Bush and the war, despite no WMD. I hope they get their money's worth because it's costing us dearly, in terms of life, credibility and dollars.

 

Warning, it's Tom Paine Time again. However, the article refers to a Die Zeit article I red this weekend and it spares me the hassle and time to translate it myself.
It highlights the problems germany, and german intelligence, had with Bush's case for war against Iraq, eventually leading to the refusal to vote for a UN resolution for a war against Iraq by our government.

The nasty parallels drawn in this article are not mine. But the justification of an invasion with a fabricated excuse isn't really what I call a policy that gives you good company.