Who are you supporting in the upcoming American election

[Dead Rabbit]

As for other systems of morality, they may be self contained, but I don’t believe that makes them equally valid.

Example: There is a Polynesian tribe that forces young boys to perform fellatio on elders until they are grown up.

I do not find this equally valid. I believe that there are basic pillars of ethics that transcends time and place.

So, yeah, we probably disagree philosophically on that one.

I’m not going to respond to you with lists. Lists of the places I’ve been. Lists of the ethnic background of the people I am friends with. That would be lame.

Do lists of lists qualify? :P

I suspect from your words that you enjoy your own system of morality more than others that are equally valid and self-contained. You patronize, which will achieve the opposite ends of what you imply that you desire to do, which is illuminate. This attitude - typically American - is what Zero is getting at, I think, in regards to how our country deals with the world. That is, arrogantly and single-mindedly. We have yet to learn the true meaning of humility, which is a requisite trait in genuinely benevolent dealings with people. Sure we've been helpful, but we're certainly not altruistic as a nation. Then again, neither are the leaders of the corporations who run this country.

[Starcadia]

Sorry to make you defensive, DR.

I would be interested to know the origins of your personal yet universal "pillars of ethics" you think everyone in the world should adhere to. Do they sell a compendium at Amazon? Or does one have to travel to the tippy-top of the Himalayas to meet with The Sane One? I had no idea that ethics was a closed case. Whoever has the rights to this knowledge must be very rich by now and trying to spread the word to as many nations as possible, by force if necessary.

[Dead Rabbit]

Sorry to make you defensive, DR.

I would be interested to know the origins of your personal yet universal "pillars of ethics" you think everyone in the world should adhere to. Do they sell a compendium at Amazon? Or does one have to travel to the tippy-top of the Himalayas to meet with The Sane One? I had no idea that ethics was a closed case. Whoever has the rights to this knowledge must be very rich by now and trying to spread the word to as many nations as possible, by force if necessary.

Actually, the only comment by you to make me “defensive” was your “sorry about making you defensive comment”. What the hell are you talking about? Defensive in an emotional, pissed off way? Or defensive in nerdy message board debating way? Because, the whole point of debate is to defend a position. Why are you sorry about making me do that?

Dude, when it’s all said and done this crap is in good fun. The internet is amazing, but sometimes soulless. I picture you, picturing me, as some know-it-all, sitting behind a computer in a dark room pounding my key board with my unwavering dogma. In reality, the lights are on, I’m playing tug of war with my dog, my wife is cracking jokes about my short, shorts and Saturday Night Live is about to come one. Oh yeah, I’m drinking beer. A Belgian farmhouse ale.

Now to your point, which I feel is an excellent one. And might I say written in the “patronizing American” style, which I, for one, enjoy.

Yes, lets travel to the Himalayas. And then to Japan. Lets cross the ocean and go to South America. Lets go everywhere. Don’t you think we will find most people wanting the same things out of life? And, despite tyranny, whether from tribal elders or military dictators, don’t you think the masses could make a very concise, but powerful list, of “Dos and Do Nots”?

[bakerbarber]

I must reiterate.

Sarah Palin is hot.

Total MILF

The crazy thing, in my opinion, is voter turn out in the U.S. Sad really in a world where so many live under dictatorships that so many of our people do not exercise their civic rights, yet digress to their dissatisfaction with the very system they do not participate in.

Legislation from the bench is another issue that hampers real progress in our nation. The opinion or one should never trump actual public mandate.

Common sense has given way to politically correct b.s. in such an astonishing way that it has crippled progress toward civilised unity. Discourse has given way to litigious fear and popular views have been swept under a carpet of phony compassionate, intangible ideals that serve the populace minority.

America's two party system has caused such a stricture in choice aided by financial ambiguity so hard to define that most citizens feel disenfranchised by proxy. We have candidates spending many times the salary of their prospective position in the quest to obtain it. The real question is to what end, and to whose benefit do they hold obligation too. Is it the lobbyist, the fund raiser, the publisher of the post term memoir, or is it to the country and her people?

May you live in interesting times.

[Dead Rabbit]

I must reiterate.

Sarah Palin is hot.

Total MILF

The crazy thing, in my opinion, is voter turn out in the U.S. Sad really in a world where so many live under dictatorships that so many of our people do not exercise their civic rights, yet digress to their dissatisfaction with the very system they do not participate in.

Legislation from the bench is another issue that hampers real progress in our nation. The opinion or one should never trump actual public mandate.

Common sense has given way to politically correct b.s. in such an astonishing way that it has crippled progress toward civilised unity. Discourse has given way to litigious fear and popular views have been swept under a carpet of phony compassionate, intangible ideals that serve the populace minority.

America's two party system has caused such a stricture in choice aided by financial ambiguity so hard to define that most citizens feel disenfranchised by proxy. We have candidates spending many times the salary of their prospective position in the quest to obtain it. The real question is to what end, and to whose benefit do they hold obligation too. Is it the lobbyist, the fund raiser, the publisher of the post term memoir, or is it to the country and her people?

May you live in interesting times.

Well said.

Which way do you predict Ohio going in the election?

[bakerbarber]

Not sure honestly. McCain showed up at a GM plat here a couple months ago and it got ugly. Obama swoons the masses with well spoken nothings.

I believe the silent conservative base will make a strong show.

Whether it's been said before or not I also believe many closet racists will vote against Obama once they are alone in the voting booth. Even being millado his platform of change may be too much to swallow for the older Midwest crowd.

McCain on the other hand has his own detractors who see him as continuing the previous regime. His age is no benefit to his perceived health or stance on any topic.

I think this election will not be chosen by who is voted for. It will be who is voted against.

Ohio will be a decisive win for either.

[Dead Rabbit]

[quote="Starcadia"]Sorry to make you defensive, DR.

your response made me look at your profile, which made go to your web site, which made me check your songs out......pretty good! you should get a song on Pop Ambient 2009!

[Zero]

I’m not going to respond to you with lists. Lists of the places I’ve been. Lists of the ethnic background of the people I am friends with. That would be lame.

Good, because all of that nonsense would be entirely irrelevant anyway.

I can only I assure you that I am well aware most Muslims are good people.

I am simply saying at this point and time, Muslim culture is going through a crisis.

American culture is going through a crisis. Muslim culture is simply the victim. The foundation of America's economic system of dominance is under threat. World developments mean that political power is slipping away from Washington as Europe gains strength, Russia recovers from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Middle East becomes richer and richer. There is panic in America because the current economic model is unsustainable in a world where countries begin to refuse the hegemonic controls imposed upon them. Al Qaeda was a product of CIA training - an attempt to fight away the Soviets during the cold war. The Muslim KLA terrorists in Kosovo were trained and armed by the CIA and the German BND. The Islamic regime in Iran is a product of the US having overthrown the democratically elected government in the 50s and installed the Shah. There is a crisis in this world, but Muslims have not been the cause of it. They have simply been implicated in a most unfortunate set of circumstances.

If I went back to Spain during the Inquisition, a time when most would agree Iberian, Catholic culture was having some major problems; I bet most of those Spaniards would be quite likable one on one. Yet those same people were taking part in burning Muslims to the stake.

And some otherwise, I'm sure, nice Americans have managed to kill about a million innocent civilians in Iraq. I don't see Al Qaeda killing anywhere near that many people. If there's a problem with Islam, there's a manifestly larger problem with America.

Zero, you seem like a typically educated person, somewhat fresh out of school with the brainwashed notion that all cultures are relative and outside moral judgment.

A testament to your perceptive abilities, I suppose, one way or another. I'm not sure what "typically educated" means, or "fresh out of school", but I would think that neither really applies to me. If I were inclined to be offended by anything I may take offence at being called 'brainwashed', however. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant waffling.

So, like a ping pong ball, I slap the propaganda accusation back at you.

Come on dude, the Ku Klux Klan poses as much of a global threat as radical Islam?

You misunderstand. I was attempting to demonstrate that all Muslims are not like the cartoons of Al Qaeda which are plastered on the television and demonised in print - no more than all Americans are guilty of the transgressions of the Klan. To answer your question - no, I don't think that "radical Islam" poses a threat to anyone. Even if it did, it is certainly not the business of world powers to seek them out and exterminate them.

The history of mankind is full of terrible deeds. Did the old slaves of early America need a foreign power to invade and force their "freedom" with violence? Do you think America would be better or worse off today if, say, the Ottoman Empire landed Battleships on the coast and started decimating cities in the name of "freeing the slaves"?

Islam is not imposed by force anywhere in the world save for a small number of Islamic states which constitute absolutely zero military threat of expanding their influence. My point is not that all culture is equivalent and relative, but that it is the business of the individuals within that culture to bring about, or not, its change. Imposing such change externally, and via use of force, does not, has not, and will not ever bring any sort of stability. Historically, such rhetoric has only ever been a loosely veiled excuse - an ostensible front for what was otherwise quite obviously an invasion of aggression.

I do not accept the "Islam must be stopped" argument and I have little patience for those who parrot it. You want to talk about brainwashed, who here is trying to convince whom of that which the papers and television has been filled with for years? I've read the news you have read. I understand the "Muslim threat" which we have been told to be afraid of. I simply don't believe it - because I have considered the facts and the implications of action logically. From where I stand, the only thing I see from you is that you have read the papers and have believed them. Why have you believed them?

Under your logic, living under what seems to be the modern, general interpretation of Sharia law would be no biggy. You know, death for those who leave Islam, chastity flogging, no freedom of speech….women getting spanked for the unseemly act of eating ice cream in public (Afghanistan under the Taliban).

In case you've missed it, I'm a strong proponent of Libertarianism. I oppose all uses of force and coercion, save those which are directly defensive. Again, your skills of perception fail you.

As I write this hundreds of thousands of children are learning this version of Sharia in schools spanning Europe, Africa, Asia and even in the U.S.

Would you deny parents the right to teach their children the religion of their people? I think your constitution might have something to say about that...

Now, my old boy Zero, please don’t come back at me with your now infamous quasi-Marxist retorts about how it “must be the money”.

Quasi-Marxist? I abhor socialism. Again, your skills of perception fail you.

A son of the doctor, funded by a well known trust fund baby, helped smash a plane in the WTC.

...eh?

[Dead Rabbit]

1. You allude to my corny “list of lists” as irrelevant but then continually lambaste me for being mindlessly and solely dominated by American press that I suppose you feel isn’t free. What if I gained some of my views from experience outside the “newspapers” you assume I cling to? I’ve seen you pull this stuff before. You deem yourself somehow the judge and jury of what media is legit and what is not. Your stats on Iraqi casualties prove that.

2. You make a great point about some of the American wrong headed moves. I believe you are referring to the C.I.A. backed coup of the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq. This was dumb, dumb move by America. As was the arming of Islamic militants. But hindsight is 20-20. Ask yourself why we were pulling off theses stunts. To check the power of a nuclear armed police state that had missiles pointed towards all of Western Europe. The consensus in the free world was that this tyrannical empire had expansive goals. Was it over kill? Maybe. But the fact is, nobody in Western Europe was complaining when America was pulling these shenanigans. Now that Western Europe is secured, how “safe” it must be to wax on about American mistakes.

3. Lets take this a step farther. After the end of World War II, America became stewards of a world that was a complete and utter cluster-**** due to European Imperialism. Again, America didn’t cut up the majority of Earth with artificial borders without respect to ethnic continuity. America didn’t install hundreds of colonial, minority backed juntas through out the world. But guess what, we have picked up the tab! I find it amazing you mention not one bit of this. I find it amazing that another European poster on here brought up Zimbabwe as an example of American neglect! The UK created the awkward and illogical borders of Iraq, of Nigeria, the Sudan.. Modern terrorism was practically invented in Algeria due to the unbelievable French hubris in not leaving even after it’s own nation felt the humiliation of an illegal occupation. The fact is, Islamic Fundamentalism was born out of French and British Imperialism, not American policy during the Cold War. The Maudi in the Sudan, the Wahhabis in Arabia….that was in the 19th century! (My apologies for poor spelling). Europe’s “hands off” role in this global mess it has created is a sin as grave as the hundreds of thousands of buckets of “offed hands” that were harvested in the Congo.

Radical Islam is enforced much more then you realize. True, there are only a couple theocratic states. But on a local level, Radical Islam is enforced upon millions of people. Millions of women are not allowed to be educated, have their reproductive organs mutilated, are threatened with honor killings. Hell, Europeans are even intimidated from expressing free speech in the comic section, for shits sake.

Dead Rabbit’s thesis:

Radical Islam, born out the evil that was European Imperialism, made worse by an American Cold War foreign policy desperate to save the world from communism, is a massive threat to world stability. Europe has taken the high road, either blaming America as the culprit or citing cultural relativism, refusing to believe the very reality that has already lowered the quality of life of people in the free world.

[Zero]

Again, America didn’t cut up the majority of Earth with artificial borders without respect to ethnic continuity. America didn’t install hundreds of colonial, minority backed juntas through out the world.

I see our source of disagreement. We are working against completely different versions of history. Obviously there have been previous Empires which have also done such things, but I see the past 60 years or so as one full of US-designed artificial borders and US-trained minority juntas. Does the name "School of The Americas" mean anything to you?

But guess what, we have picked up the tab!

I'm not sure what this is in reference to or how it is relevant to the discussion.

At any rate, I agree that several European powers have been equally hegemonic in their foreign policy. The Dutch, French, Spanish, British - even the Swedes - have all had dirty meddlings around the world, I agree. Are you trying to say that this justifies American action, though? What's your point? I would think that, with their history as a lesson, that modern man should know better. All you're saying is that America has failed to learn from history.

I’ve seen you pull this stuff before. You deem yourself somehow the judge and jury of what media is legit and what is not. Your stats on Iraqi casualties prove that.

Since the only thing I can respond to is the facts, my numbers are the best-estimates to date. The current estimate of casualties is over 1.2 million, with a c.2006 figure in excess of 600,000 produced by researchers at John Hopkins and published in the UK medical journal The Lancet.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/ira...planation.html

But the fact is, nobody in Western Europe was complaining when America was pulling these shenanigans. Now that Western Europe is secured, how “safe” it must be to wax on about American mistakes.

People were complaining - it was just that it was in the time before the information age and it was much more difficult to get information about what was going on and to share that information with others. America certainly didn't come out and tell the people what they were doing - "Hey, our idea to stop the Russians is to breed religious fanatics and give them M-16s". I'm sure that public support would be pretty close to nil for such action. The lack of opposition is largely an indicator of how little was known of the situation rather than how deplorable the tactics used were.

But on a local level, Radical Islam is enforced upon millions of people. Millions of women are not allowed to be educated, have their reproductive organs mutilated, are threatened with honor killings. Hell, Europeans are even intimidated from expressing free speech in the comic section, for shits sake.

Ok, but here's where we have to stand back and say that it's their situation to fix. Bombing Iraq is not a solution to women wearing the hijab, assuming that it is even a problem needing fixing. Iraq was a secular state anyway. Trying to explain US foreign policy on the basis of religion is futile because it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Religion is a fairy tale used by parents to put their children to sleep and by statesmen to get their young men to charge to war - it is not why states invade other states, it's just a convenient motivator. The question is - what threat does Islam actually pose? The US fought back the Soviet Union, which had thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. What do a few guys in "caves" (as we're to believe) have to threaten that? Seriously, this is like the Tyrannosaurus Rex with a stupid phobia of mice.

Dead Rabbit’s thesis:

Radical Islam, born out the evil that was European Imperialism, made worse by an American Cold War foreign policy desperate to save the world from communism, is a massive threat to world stability. Europe has taken the high road, either blaming America as the culprit or citing cultural relativism, refusing to believe the very reality that has already lowered the quality of life of people in the free world.

Ok, but if we acknowledge that European Imperialism was part of the problem and that American Imperialism continues to be the problem, then why not stop trying to be Imperialists??! Clearly, imposing one's will on people pisses them off. Why not stop doing it? Just stop sending armies to other countries. If your thesis were correct then the solution is simple - since the simple solution has not been chosen, then your hypothesis is incorrect - the motives of those making the decision and/or the nature of the problem has been erroneously formulated.

[Dead Rabbit]

I dispute that American foreign policy is even imperialistic

Let’s say you are right. Do you honestly believe that American Imperialism and European Imperialism are even remotely comparable?

Europe straight up took over the world, violently oppressed the people and stole resources wholesale. The mark Europe left on the world will last for 500 more years or more.

There are many good arguments why America has no business being in Iraq. But, Iraq has not been profitable. Yes, I know, some firms have made money. But as a whole, Iraq has been an economic debacle of trillions of net loss dollars. Neo-cons believe the spread of ideology, sometimes by force, will stabilize the world. Neo-cons want to pour money INTO countries, not pull resources out. As a poster pointed out, America has not received one free barrel of oil form Iraq. Not one.

By picking up the tab, I meant the world runs to America for help on every crisis.

Almost every crisis is due to former European Imperialism.

To compare U.S. policy to European Imperialism is intellectually dishonest.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe the U.S. had no right to invade Afghanistan?

[Zero]

No, I don't think they should have invaded Afghanistan. There was no cause - end of story.

But Iraq not profitable? Again, we are in opposition because we understand the world in very different ways. Where you see no profit I see the securing of probably the most important cornerstone of US economics - the monopoly on the oil trade. Politics is very complex. It's easy to say "It's all about the oil", but I think very few people who say that actually understand what it means.

The US has held a monopoly on oil trade in that everywhere in the world, no matter where, a barrel of oil is bought or sold, it is done so in US dollars. Or at least that's the way it was before November of 2000 when Saddam decided to change all his oil dealings from US dollars to euros. The key thing to understand here is that it is profitable for the US simply to have oil bought and sold in US dollars, not to actually have US companies doing the buying and selling. Certainly big oil gets their dipstick into the mix with back-scratching, etc, but this is not the prime motivator - the prime motivator is to ensure, by force if necessary, that oil continues to be bought and sold in US dollars - something the Iraq war has succeeded in doing and something that, for the continued dominance of the US dollar, was entirely successful. It was worth a trillion dollars because a trillion dollars wouldn't be worth crap if everyone suddenly decided to trade oil in Euros. The gravity of financial collapse that the US would suffer as a consequence would make the Great Depression look like a holiday in paradise.

I wrote this in another forum (somewhat more...raw of a forum, excuse the language at points, lol!) and my point to follow basically echoes what I said here, but without a good understanding of economics this should, I hope, illustrate the magnitude of the situation :

US dollars in the petroleum market constitute the very foundation of the Federal Reserve's ability to exercise such loose fiscal policy - policy which further provides the foundation for the unwarranted strength of the US economy. America simply does not produce enough stuff to be as rich as they are. All of the prosperity - the excess profit - in America has depended on the US dollar being the world reserve currency for oil since the former half of the 20th century. If everyone switched their oil dollars for Euros at this point in history, the US would be ****ed beyond ****ed - it would no longer be shady proxy wars, but the US would be forced to either accept a protracted economic depression (and the poverty and destitution which goes with it) or would be forced to wage full-on, good-old-fashioned war with anyone they could.

Consider how many dollars are held abroad - dollars which represent a debt drawn on the Federal Reserve Bank and owed BY the Federal Reserve to everyone who holds those dollars - solely for use by other nations as, essentially, "oil tickets". Consider what the market would do if that massive supply of debt all came up at once - if everyone sold their dollars on the market to hold Euros as "oil tickets" instead. The Fed owes a shitload of money and doesn't have a scrap of anything to pay it off with. The major reason people hold dollars, outside of America, (and discounting speculative investment) is because US dollars have purchasing power for oil. That is why it is a strong currency and that is why people "have confidence" in it. If you take that away, there's very little reason to expect US dollars to hold any value because there's not a lot else you can buy with them and the stagnating US economy is certainly not going to provide any stimulus to that.

Imagine the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker will all accept my cheques - no matter who they are made out to. If I've written you a cheque in the past, just sign it over to the shopkeep and make off with your goods. If this goes on for a long time, I can be incredibly rich. I just write cheques to anyone I meet. Some may make it back to the bank, but if everyone in town will just take them as they are, then many of them will not make it back to the bank. I buy a hammer from the hardware man and write him a cheque. He doesn't cash it, but he keeps it and uses it to buy a loaf of bread from the baker. The baker then turns it over to the butcher to pick up some soup bones - this carries on and my bank account never has to actually pay the cheque. This because there is confidence that my cheques will be taken anywhere.

So here's the point - I can go around town and buy tons of stuff with my cheques and only a fraction of them ever make their way back to the bank. This because they are used routinely to pay for things everyone needs all of the time. I have a magical chequebook which needs little to no money in the bank to actually work. As the town grows, more people move in, and the demand for my cheques grows - I'm free to spend even more money around town and never actually have to pay for anything. This is because I am the source of all money in town. I just write on pieces of paper and away they go.

But what if one day everyone decided that I'm a **** and a scam and an asshole to boot. The baker is pissed off because I always hang out in his living room and watch his TV and I don't clean the dishes I use when I invite myself around. The butcher is getting fed up with me too and suddenly they all decide to say "screw this guy - let's use Bob's cheques instead". The next week a flood of cheques start coming back to the bank as people cash them in to trade for Bob's cheques. I have been so used to freeloading all of these years that I haven't got a cent in my bank account to cover it. I paid for everything I have with cheques, and most of that was certainly not spent on capital goods which retained value. There is one word for that - bankrupt! ****ed, ****ed, ****ed. This is why the war in Iraq is worth spending a trillion dollars on - because if Saddam had carried on trading in Euros, a trillion dollars wouldn't be worth shit anyway.

[Zero]

By picking up the tab, I meant the world runs to America for help on every crisis.

Well, as I've said before, I see the US causing crisis deliberately so that they have an excuse to intervene - even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union because they lost a critical source of crisis-creation in the fall of their former enemy. Most of South America has fallen victim at one point or another to death-squad revolutionaries and juntas trained at the School of The Americas. Look up any political assassination in South America and in each instance you will usually find upwards of 70% of the people implicated in each incident were trained there. Take just El Salvador as an example :

Romero assassination 3 officers cited --- 2 were SOA graduates
Murder of US nuns 5 officers cited --- 3 were SOA graduates
Union leader murders 3 officers cited --- 3 were SOA graduates
El Junquillo massacre 3 officers cited --- 2 were SOA graduates
El Mazote massacre 12 officers cited --- 10 were SOA graduates
Dutch journalist murders 1 officer cited --- he was an SOA graduate
Las Hojas massacre 6 officers cited --- 3 were SOA graduates
San Sebastian massacre 7 officers cited --- 6 were SOA graduates
Jesuit massacre 26 officers cited --- 19 were SOA graduates

The list goes on. Factor in Al Qaeda, the KLA, the Contra scandal (vs the Sandinistas), etc, etc. Yes, Europe caused a lot of problems, but that doesn't mean that America has to continue causing the same sorts of problems. I still fail to see your angle of justification there. Either we agree that these things happened or we don't. Either we agree that they were good decisions to make - sensible ways of solving what, ostensibly, the problem seemed to be - or they weren't. The problem I see is that democracy does not include such decisions - the people have no vote in these matters. They are undertaken with the unilateral and impetuous haste of a dictator.

Nobody asked the American people if they would be ok with spending their tax dollars to smuggle cocaine in order to raise funds for supplying Middle Eastern revolutionaries. Nobody asked the American people if it would be a good idea to train Islamic terrorists to put an end to Serbia's "arrogant" nationalisation of her natural resources. Doesn't it anger you that your government doesn't ask these questions of the people? That they spend your tax money on such reckless and hegemonic pursuits? I'm pissed off enough that Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, I'd be beside myself if I was a US citizen.

I mean, here's a recent article about the same old story happening again - resuscitating old CIA tactics from the coup in Nicaragua to brew the same stew in Venezuela.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6505

In fact, you might find a lot of articles on that site of interest - a refreshing change from canned news, to be sure. The site is run by a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.

[kidstaxi]

No, I don't think they should have invaded Afghanistan. There was no cause - end of story.

[/quote]This is why, I ended my discussion with you. I could tell, I was dealing with a person who was intelligent, but has a solid hatred for the US.

After attacks on the USS Cole and 9/11. If you do not think a counrty does not have the right to protect itself or retaliate, you must a little off you rocker.

It has got to be hatred, paraniod disorder, brainwashing, religion, or at the very least jealously.

Everyone know that Osama Bin Ladin planned and had his follwers (troops) carry out these attacks. The US asked the Taliban to hand him over. They refused, so the US took action. For you to at least say what you did, to me shows you are in this conversation to promote your agenda or to stir up hard feelings.

I will give you Iraq. We should not be there. But, Afghanistan you could not be any futher in left field. Even Mr. Liberial himself (Obama) agrees with Afghanistan.

Dude, I wish you luck and blessings in life. But, I have zero repsect for you. I know you could careless(no need to post it) and that will show want kind of person you are.

It is comments such as these is why, I would love for America to worry about herself. Let the world eat itself alive.

Rabbit,

If you have any sense at all, you need to end this conversation. I have never seen anyone head-butt a brick wall down. You are just going to end up with a big headache.

[Zero]

Everyone know that Osama Bin Ladin planned and had his follwers (troops) carry out these attacks. The US asked the Taliban to hand him over. They refused, so the US took action. For you to at least say what you did, to me shows you are in this conversation to promote your agenda or to stir up hard feelings.

Do you know, though? This is the whole point of this discussion - 9/11 was spectacular, to be sure, but there is very little evidence connecting the incident with anyone. Most of the accused 19 have been verified to be very much alive and well in various countries around the world and have absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The FBI has never updated their list of suspects though - nobody seems to care who really did it.

But at any rate, 9/11 aside, the US and UK had plans drawn up for the invasion of Afghanistan well before 9/11 even happened. September 3, 2001 the UK sent the HMS Illustrious to the Middle East in the largest naval deployment since the Falkland war. The US made similar preparations well in advance. Again, these children's stories of bogeymen and religious fanatics are all just that - stories. They are a popular narrative crafted for consumption by the public, but when you take the time to actually study what has actually happened, the more it becomes obviously clear that reality has very little to do with such superficial explanations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1522987.stm

I mean, Bush had the documents on his desk on the morning of the 9th September, just waiting to go. How do you think they got pictures of Osama on the TV just hours after the attacks - do you really think they managed to conduct an investigation in that time? Even in just a normal airline crash the investigation can take months before they figure out what happened, never mind uncovering an international terrorist ring.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

This is why, I ended my discussion with you. I could tell, I was dealing with a person who was intelligent, but had a solid hatred for the US.

Again, I implore you not to take this personally. I don't hate the US. I simply hate US foreign policy which, as I noted above, the actual citizens of the US are largely forbidden to take part in. I don't think Canada should have gone into Afghanistan either, but that doesn't mean I hate Canada - try to dissociate your passions from the issues.

If you have any sense at all, you need to end this conversation. I have never seen anyone head-butt a brick wall down. You are just going to end up with a big headache.

I don't really care if I change any minds - I'm happy to simply challenge them with what I believe are probably new ideas and new information. I argue the case in presenting that information, but by all means I leave it to you to make up your own mind. Tell me that this thread hasn't provided you with any new information and I will be surprised.