"If youre not with us, youre against us!"

Well, I can't find a 'p' in that, but I remember some famous guy who was for peace on earth, and goodwill toward men who said pretty much the same thing.

The point to it is that it's a load of bull.

If anything a man saying stuff like that shows total intolerance to what ever is different.

It's like saying "You better swing our way or you may be next"

It's inciting and a world leader should refrain from phrases like those.

Bush was talking about the war on terrorism with that statement. The only people who "aren't with us" are the people who support using passanger jets as guided missiles for taking out massive amounts of civilians.

And all that the statement revealed was the incredible myopia of the people who use it to push their anti-American agenda.

[quote]These people SHOULD be "with us or against us". It's a common cause, if I've ever seen one.<hr></blockquote>

I wholeheartedly agree with that. But what exactly is "for us" or "against us"? Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found. How would you feel about your Government if your front door came smashing in early one morning without warning or a search warrant, if you got dragged out of bed and slung in jail by a bunch of heavily armed agents? I can see a long string of very expensive and highly justified lawsuits for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the future.

Yes I am wholeheartedly in favor of finding those maniacs responsible, but in a means that befit the character of the most civilized and free nation on Earth; to alienate entire communities and engender fear, hatred and distrust here at home is not a very productive type of response, this type of action being more typical of rogue nations like Myannmar, Iraq or Afghanistan under the Taliban. What's next? Compulsory tattoos or markings for Muslims? Special clothing to be worn at all times by resident aliens? Pink Triangles for gay people?

When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw him say that. IIRC, it was in response to a question about Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect saying something about the terrorists having more courage than Americans.

I hope Fleishcer wishes he hadn't said it, but in light of the executive order on military trials and the PATRIOT act, the bill of rights doesn't seem to be a real high priority for them right now.

Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.

Actually SOME visitors DO have diplomatic rules that make them NOT accountable for some actions they participate in that are illegal.

And no .. the rights we have are only for the citizens of the US, You know.. that is why they can do what they are doing.

I personally liked the bush "Resistance is Futile" quote...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
----------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall23.jpeg

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I wholeheartedly agree with that. But what exactly is "for us" or "against us"? Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found. How would you feel about your Government if your front door came smashing in early one morning without warning or a search warrant, if you got dragged out of bed and slung in jail by a bunch of heavily armed agents? I can see a long string of very expensive and highly justified lawsuits for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the future </strong><hr></blockquote>

You don't know half how right you are.

I have a tatoo on my forearm of a green flag with a golden harp, Ireland's flag before the green white gold one, and above it it says "Sinne Fianna Faill" which means "Soldiers are We" It's also the first line of the Irish national anthem. During the Canary Wharf bombing campaign in 1996 I was in London to spend the weekend with my girlfriend at the time, who was incidently English. Walking through customs an officer noticed my tatoo and wanted to know "What does that mean Paddy?", so I answered him. I was escorted to a backroom, my luggage was turned upside down, strip searched, interogated and held for 6 hours under the "Prevention of Terrorism act". I was not allowed to contact my girlfriend, nor did anyone else inform her or any of my family that I was being held.

See, I have this tatoo. I'm not with them. Therefore I must be against them and thus a terrorist.

Maybe you would all like to read

<a href="http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal-canada.com/pta.htm" target="_blank">this</a>

P.S My reason earlier for pointing out my former girlfriend is English is to emphasise that even though I do not agree with the English government I have nothing against English people. Some of my friends are English but no, I don't introduce them as "my English friend" ;)

Consdering that President Bush had the means at his disposal to retaliate immediately to this threat to the peace and welfare of the American people and he didn't, shows a great deal of restraint. That he went to the United Nations, NATO, all countries in the region including the Taliban shows restraint. That he demanded that a known criminal be turned over by the Taliban (Bin Laden has been charged with previous terrorist attacks in American courts) shows restraint. Considering the attitude of the American people on 9/11, he could have dropped a nuclear device on Afghanistan and not many would have blinked an eye - but he didn't. That is showing a great deal of restraint. Overall I think that President Bush showed a great deal of restraint.

As far as his statement that you are with us or you are against us...well, you are either with us or you are against us!

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: ac2c ]</p>

SamJoOll:
[quote]<strong>Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge,</strong><hr></blockquote>

Locked up and then released. The vast majority on immigration charges. You conveniently leave out that they're all at home now.

Who is still locked up?

[quote]<strong>What's next? Compulsory tattoos or markings for Muslims? Special clothing to be worn at all times by resident aliens? Pink Triangles for gay people?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi, I'm reality, have we met?

That kind of tripe might get the local causeheads all hot and bothered but here in the real world we have to justify such idiotic drivel.

oracle:
[quote]<strong>I have a tatoo on my forearm ... nor did anyone else inform her or any of my family that I was being held.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This has what to do with America?

[quote]<strong>There are still such things as human rights, the ones that we're always harping on about when we think about China or Turkey? We can "swing" what ever way we want and to even suggest that there will be consequences if we don't "swing the right way" is in violation of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What the hell does the human rights situation in China or Turkey have to do with the point of this thread or anything at all to do with the terrorist attacks?

What are we supposed to do, refuse to trade with China? Have the UN sanction it so the human rights there can get even worse?

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at a straw man.

[quote]<strong>No. World leaders should be sensible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sensible, how? Like giving the Taliban 3+ years to turn over bin Laden? Because we did that.

He killed our soldiers and Clinton threw some cruise missiles at the desert and let the issue lie. bin Laden was under indictment, he was wanted.

Do you actually think they were going to hand him over if we asked nicely?

And before you start the "we don't have evidence" bullshit he ADMITTED to the barracks bombing that killed over a dozen of or soldiers. The Taliban kept protecting him.

Even after 9/11 we gave them a little under a month.

Who, exactly, is the hothead?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Locked up and then released. The vast majority on immigration charges. You conveniently leave out that they're all at home now.

Who is still locked up?</strong><hr></blockquote>Where did you find this out? Last I knew, part of the reason people were concerned about this is that they didn't release their names or when they were taken into custody, or when they were released, so no one really knows how many people are in custody or how long. Can you provide some more info?

BRussell:

John Ashcroft spoke on those detentions at length, even going so far as to enunciate phrases like, "there have been no arrests in connection with terrorist activity".

I'm afraid that making whacked out claims gives you the burden of proof.

If there were 1200 people locked away by the man, why aren't we hearing about it?

Samantha Joanne:

Do you read what people say or do you just click "Post Reply" and begin with the mental diarrhea?

You make generalizations that have little to no basis in reality and judgement calls you aren't qualified to make.

Do you ignore the success had so quickly in these operations?

Scribam Samantha:
"Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found."

The only people referred to in specifics (the article you link to mentions quite a large number of illegally incarcerated people almost in passing with no detail) point to a few hundred held on immigration charged.

[quote]<strong>So, did you just make that up?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I'm referring to the people arrested immediatly following the attacks when these concerns (valid, though they are) were first raised. Those brought in under suspicion of terrorist activity are no longer incarcerated (as far as any of us know) and many have been released. Many are still held (or rather their release unpublicized) on immigration charges.

I spoke in an overly-factual manner and for that I apologize.

Thousands of people being held without recourse would make the headlines, in my opinion. Unless one is willing to believe that the gov't is perpetuating massive kangaroo courts to which relatives and acquintances of those tried have acquised and have not spoken out against.

I find it difficult to believe there would not be large movements to free these wrongly incarcerated people.

[quote]War isn't politically correct. Get used to it.<hr></blockquote>

War is inevitable, given the nature of human beings. This one is justified, given that we were attacked, and we have every right to defend ourselves, and preventing future attacks from Al Qaeda et al; The response to the Pearl Harbor attack was similarly justified. However, most of the other wars the U.S. has become inbroiled in since WW2 were at best marginal in their justification, or wholly unnecessary and destructive.

Hindsight is always 20-20 but the main "benefit" to America from the dozens of wars we have instigated and gotten involved in since then has been to furnish fat profits for defense contractors, and providing millions of jobs as a result. Our country's economy, like it or not, is dependent on war-related industry like no other economy on the planet and is sustained by instability and warfare throughout the world. If the world suddenly became a peaceful, secure place...

Far too much money is at stake. Forget about war's political correctness or otherwise, more to the point is it's political necessity. Ironically, if Japan hadn't attacked us, then Europe may easily have succumbed to the Nazis.

Come on grover "The Man" starts wars. ;)

I think I'm going to throw up. I 98% agree with groverat. I just think we should stop trade with China, just a few weeks before we invade.

[quote]<strong>You now have your own "Prevention of Terrorism Act". I hope you are willing to accept that many people will fall victim to this intrusion on basic human rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.

I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)

Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.

I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)

Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with you..if your not doing anything shady over the net why do you really care? And you not even suspected you probably wont be even thought about.

Well, yes, of course, what exactly is wrong with that?
Perhaps he didnt mean it this way, but the litteral meaning of what he said is, for lack of better terms, disgusting. It rules out neutrality and passive attitudes.
Now granted, that was mainly his poor speech writers doing the job, not to mention that he himself is probably thick as Scottish Oatmeal. Now Im the first to admit that intent is what should be followed, not litteral speech, but when you in diplomatic ties with the rest of the world you need to show more disgresion in your speech.

not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found.
Correction, they have "good evidence" as to the guilt of the people. However for strategic reasons they are not going to tell any one their evidence :rolleyes:

Consdering that President Bush had the means at his disposal to retaliate immediately to this threat to the peace and welfare of the American people and he didn't,
Its much like how I have the power to kill you on contact. I could do it with no problems, but it would mean bad things for me. Bush could have nuked them, but if he did not only would the whole world be on the USs ass like coffee on a university students paper, but the US would be on Bushes ass.

You have to lose your notions of good and bad to appreciate it.
mna, peices of this aphorism are coming to my mind... in war the line between good and evil is clouded or something like that. Point is, in war there is no such thing as good or bad, only my side and your side.

You now have your own "Prevention of Terrorism Act". I hope you are willing to accept that many people will fall victim to this intrusion on basic human rights.

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/oden5.html" target="_blank">Will?</a>

[quote]<strong>Perhaps he didnt mean it this way, but the litteral meaning of what he said is, for lack of better terms, disgusting. It rules out neutrality and passive attitudes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Neutrality is a myth.
There are degrees of involvement, but there is no such thing as neutrality, especially in this case.

Describe a passive attitude to me. What would, say, a passive France do with known terrorists? Nothing?

[quote]<strong>Now Im the first to admit that intent is what should be followed, not litteral speech, but when you in diplomatic ties with the rest of the world you need to show more disgresion in your speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In diplomatic terms, who has been off-put by the words?
Support for the U.S. in this instance is nearly universal, is it not?

A lesson from an armchair diplomat, eh? :rolleyes:

[quote]<strong>However for strategic reasons they are not going to tell any one their evidence</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is it a massive conspiracy involving dozens of nations?

That Ogden thing is hilarious, a hippie thinking she is way more important than she really is. I remember talking with my fellow Greens about this on campus, hilarious conspiracy theories. She caused a ruckus and she got held, it happened to my brother last week who nearly missed his flight because he neglected to tell them about the TiBook in his backpack and they searched and questioned him.

They were obviously after him because he, uhh, has. . . umm, facial hair! CONSPIRACY!

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.

I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)

Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry but that is the least that can happen. There are other situations that can occur. I will not deny that I'm sceptic of this because of my own experience and because of the way the British have used their version very recklessly.

I could not give a flying hoot if MI5 or MI6 had my info either. Jeez, they could give it to the Queen herself for reading on the little queen's room. But when they start dragging me in and questioning me over a tatoo because they're totally paranoid caused by a situation that THEY created, then I will be p*ssed off. Now if it had only happened to me it would have been a mistake. Sad thing is, plenty of my friends have gone through similar things in England.

We're young, we're Irish and we love our country and we want it back. That's all the excuse they need.

I sincerely hope the U.S will make use of this a little better although the nature of such law does not provide a good foundation.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea well you got the quote wrong in as way that's important. Don't bother to correct your mistake.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>That's was the quote published by CNN.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then CNN is wrong. Is it in quotes or a paraphrase?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just because he whispers "what's my name bitch" in your ear doesn't mean he doesn't really know what his own name is.

:rolleyes:

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Just because he whispers "what's my name bitch" in your ear doesn't mean he doesn't really know what his own name is.

:rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well at least that was funny :)

I still prefer your momma though...

[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>macoracle, you make some good points, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I didn't mean to say that people in this thread were saying we shouldn't go after Bin Laden. I just meant to say that there are these people around.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The voice of reason :)

I know there are these people around. I disagree with them and I can understand enough is enough.

But it's exactly when world leaders go around saying things like this that people are not able to tell the difference between wrong and right. They will label everyone that disagrees in the slightest way as "against us"

Scott H said:

[quote]Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist. <hr></blockquote>

Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.

This puts us in a very awkward spot, since we are on first name terms with some countries and parties who most definitely sponsor, harbor and use methods that fit very neatly with any definition of terrorism. The only way around this is yet more double standards. But duplicity is one of the evils of the world that causes so many of the problems in the first place, and will only undermine our cause in the longterm.

Perhaps a lazy, complicit (and increasingly centralized and controlled/propagandized) media that refuses to report or acknowledge duplicities and allows certain selected items of terrorism to escape attention will be our savior (regarding public opinion here?)

What's a superpower to do? :o

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Scott H said:



Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists</strong><hr></blockquote>

The misquote goes on. Will anyone correct it or do I have to?

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

I can't agree with you. You know when Reagan went to the Berlin wall and said "tear down this wall" people said it was too bold and provoking. Not the language of diplomacy. Guess what? The wall came down.

Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist.

BTW you still haven't corrected the quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well since this is the quote I read I'm not quite sure what you want me to replace it with?

Also, I'm not sure that it was Reagan's words that brought the wall down or the fact that people revolted and risked their lives doing so. I doubt they did it because Reagan told them so. Since I wasn't there and asked them I can't deny it though. I still doubt it.

You don't have to be perfect to defend yourself.

Absolutely not. And you are making connections in my post that I never said or implied. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and it would be extremely hard, if not impossible to find anyone out there who thought otherwise.

We have done naughty things, especially in Central/South America. My question to you: How does this negate our actions in Afghanistan?

Again, you are making connections that I never stated or implied. There's a huge difference between what we have done in Central/South America, and our current campaign in Afghanistan. Some of our actions in Central/South America constituted terrorism or mass murder, without provocation. Those countries did not attack us, they did not threaten us militarily, and they didn't employ terrorism against the US. Their main crime was not to conform to US ideological and political preferences.

Re. Afghanistan, our actions there are in self defense or pre-emptive self defense because we were attacked by members of an organization that has facilities in that country, and threatened repeat attacks (Osama bin Laden's videotape released shortly after the Sept 11 attacks confirmed that). I have never said or implied that it is wrong for the US to defend itself against anyone who attacks us. My gripe is that we are going after one target whilst blatantly ignoring others because of favoritism, political expediency etc. If we continue to approach the terror issue in a duplicitous or un-evenhanded fashion, then the coalition will surely collapse.

Pakistan practices terrorism on India. That's terrible, but it's not against us.

I agree. But what if, say, Country A's terrorism against Country B happens to involve U.S interests? Or for that matter, the interests of *any member* of this International Coalition against Terror? The goals of the the Coalition against terror were to disable and destroy terrorist organizations with 'international reach'. Sure, we are the primary nation here, but those other nations, no matter how unimportant, do count. Or not?

What you prescribe are the actions of a nation acting as if it runs the world as some kind of disciplinarian mother.

Because of the military, economic and cultural leverage we have globally, pretty much in excess of all other nations even put together, isnt that what we do anyway?...except some of the 'children' can misbehave and get away a hug and a mild telling off, and others get beaten about the head and then grounded. This type of conduct may go unnoticed here, but for those directly affected, it goes down like the proverbial lead balloon. And the inevitable/likely consequences of such are not in the national security interests of America.

Where is the responsibility of the U.N. which is full of nations (besides the U.S.) that endorse and practice terrorism.

I agree, the U.N has a lot to live up to in this respect.

Using the dictionary definition, what nation HASN'T practiced terrorism? And when you find the answer to that is "there isn't one" then I must ask again: Should all nations simply lock themselves in the closet beat themselves with leather straps for redemption.

No, all nations should come out of the closet and make an effort to close down all organizations that use terror as a means to an end. Is that not what President Bush said to the world shortly after the Sept 11 attacks? Why should this effort be compromised? I don't feel that it is 'idealistic' or 'unrealistic' for the world to get together and really have a shy at this. But maybe we as a nation will have to make some compromises here, and resist the temptation to be the playgound bully as we have done in the past so often, with impunity, simply because we have the biggest muscles. I don't feel that such is 'unpatriotic'; maybe it lacks the mass appeal of machismo or yahoo-ism, but that's no great loss.

They fostered a terrorist organization that killed 4k+ of our people. They are dead now or are on the road to death.

We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.

Israel hasn't organized terrorism against the U.S., so we haven't gotten involved against them militarily.........If our military DID get involved and started bombing Israeli positions you would scream bloody murder, and you know it.

Why would the US bombing of 'Israeli positions' elicit my complaints any more than the bombing of anywhere else? It is never going to happen anyway. We give Israel $3.5 billion annually, much to purchase weapons which are used daily to terrorize and assassinate Palestinians. In this instance the US is sponsoring international terrorism. Is that OK? Or do we feel that we can do no wrong, no matter what?

A little less idealistic sanctimony, please, and a little more common sense.

That sentiment should be addressed to all.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.
<hr></blockquote>

Ironically, Samantha, it was traditional Jeffersonian idealism that drove our response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. That's precisely the form of foreign policy you now advocate.

But then, I'm sure you realized that, seeing as how you an expert enough in foreign policy to recognize a "perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight."

Right?

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This isn't a "blowback" situation. bin Landen is a rich kid gone bad. He used his own money and crafted his ideals independent of the US. Afghanistan has always been a hard place to live. Been that way forever. We didn't create that at all. The Taliban are a creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"blowback" is a term the Blame America crowed grasp at. It doesnt fit the current situation. We didn't cause the Taliban and we did incite Al Quada. Oh and hind site is always 20/20 when it comes to foreign policy. But if we had led Afghanistan to stable country then bin Laden would have just set up shop somewhere else.

So ... we're not to blame.

Bin Laden told us in the 80s that he would turn his guns on us if we put troops in Saudi Arabia even if they asked us to be there.

That's his beef with us. What we needed was someone with enough nutsack to take his ass out back when he bombed and killed just a few of our soldiers instead of thousands of our people. Blowing up dirt in Afghanistan and aspirin factories in Sudan with a few cruise missiles didn't help.

I shudder to think what Russia would do if someone flew 2 jumbo jets into significant buildings in Moscow. Or Beijing.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

That could be very bad. They would likely not wait for other nations to approve of their retaliation as the US has done.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And they would be well within their right not to wait.

It's too bad for the UN that countries have the right to defend themselves ;)

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

And they would be well within their right not to wait.

It's too bad for the UN that countries have the right to defend themselves ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree wholly. But the method they would use for self-defense would quite possibly be nuclear considering the country that the attack orginated from and their history with that country. I was merely pointing out that the US has been quite reserved in their retaliation going so far as to wait for people to agree with us before we attacked another nation (to the possible detriment of the retaliation I might add).