A Controversial Subject......

[ASHTHECAT]

Ok, I know that this post will probably generate a lot of controversy and even though it has nothing to do with bad movies I still feel the need to post it here because out of all the forums I post to, this one is the best and I know that I'll get  honest, and probably a lot of forthright response from all of you.  Most of my rare posts usually do.  Since this is September 11th and me being a conservative republican, I fell that I have to get this off of my chest.
    I truly believe that the attack last year was only
the beginning.  I forsee even worse attacks coming.   I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm only telling what I think will actually happen.
It's a strange thing to have those thoughts.  Most of
the time I don't think about it because something
inside me says to have no fear.  When they do come,
they are intense and frightening.  Especially when the thought of nuclear weapons comes to mind.  Not only do I see
America suffering further attacks but I see England
being hit as well.  Since Tony Blair is one of
President Bush's strongest supporters I forsee England
being a prime target.  If England is hit, (which I
think they will be eventually) they'll be hit hard.  I
honestly don't know.  
    Now do you see why it is imperative that we attack
Iraq?  I remember what the President said right after
the attacks last year.  He said, "either you're with us, or
you're with the terrorists."  It p**ses me off to no
end when I hear all of this bulls**t about all of the
other countries condemning a possible attack.  They're
nothing but a bunch of cowards!   Try to look at it
another way.  Think of the police.  When they suspect
a person of having a gun who will hurt others, what do
they do?  They take his ass down and either kill him
or throw him in jail.  Imagine your fellow police
officers (America's allies) in the background saying,
"oh I don't know, maybe we should just leave him
alone."  That simply isn't acceptable.  Eventually
he'll kill, or he'll give his gun to someone else that
will.  The man needs to be taken down.  The same thing
rings true about Iraq only on a larger scale.  I
completely and totally agree with the President and
Prime Minister Blair.  I voted for Bush because I have
faith in him and think that MOST of everything he says
is correct.  This isn't just about America.  It
concerns the whole world.  How many of those other countries
do you think would come crying to the United States if
they were the ones who were attacked?  Every f**king
one of them.  Oh well.  If America and England
(hopefully Australia too)decide to go it alone then so
be it.

[jmc]

Although I'm not adverse to attacking Iraq, I'd rather just bomb them enough to put a dent in their weapons program for a while.  I really don't want yet another dependent country basically living of the U.S.  Afghanistan is bad enough.

It does annoy me to see the countries that Saddam would most likely endanger attempting to keep the US from attacking him.  Maybe we should just let him do what he wants, then when they beg us to help stop his invasion tell them that they're on their own.  But of course that's just a pipe dream.  

I know this sounds bad, but it bothers me that the US gets attacked, we cause the Taliban to scatter, and basically liberate Afghanistan.  It bothers me because I feel like in some ways, the attacks were the best thing to happen to Afghanistan--it's almost as if they are being rewarded, even though I know the people themselves had nothing to do with it.  I just feel like we, the victims, aren't getting any real benefit--we've basically got a government we have to babysit and an Afghan president whom they're already trying to assassinate that we've got to protect.  

I know there will be more attacks, but I'm optimistic because there are other countries around the world that have to deal with that sort of thing yet they are able to go about their business....I think we can do the same.  

I voted for Bush too, though I'm not sure if I'll do so again.  I'll be the first to admit he probably isn't the brightest guy in the world, but I feel like he is a decent person--and I think he's probably a little more in touch with the country than his father was.

[Dano]

No controversy in this, although some might wish you'd keep it off this board.  A few thoughts:

1.  Nukes.  If they had them, they'd have used them.  And if they were to use one, I'm not certain it would be here.  Al qaida wants to start a general war between the West and the Islamic World so Muslims will rally to their cause.  Whatever you think of Bush, he did a marvelous job preventing that from happening while at the same time striking back.  So what would nuking us accomplish?  We've shown that we're not willing to make this a war against Islam.  BUT - if they had a nuke, wouldn't a better idea for rallying Muslims be to plant it somewhere in Afghanistan (or Iraq, or Sudan, etc) and wait for a US cruise missile strike?  Then when the strike comes in, detonate the nuke so it looks like the US did it?  Wouldn't that achieve their goal much better and cause worldwide condemnation of the US?  Wouldn't that rally Muslims to Al Qaida and against the Arab governments they want to overthrow?  Think about it.

2.  I am not certain there will be more attacks here.  Their last attacks were utter failures in terms of achieving their goals, they've given us greater resolve, they created a lot of sympathy for us, and we were able to anhillate their home base.  I DO think there will be more attacks against Americans overseas, but what else is new?  I think England is probably safer.  Islamic Extremists rely to heavily on operating out of England to start a ruckus there.

3.  Saddam must go - it was the great failure of George Bush the elder that he is still alive and in power.  He's trying to make nukes and BCW (bio/chem weapons), and when he gets them, he'll use them.  I do not believe that he had nothing to do with September 11 either.  And DO NOT BELIEVE THE ALL-OPPOSED CRAP WE ARE HEARING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.  Know this: there is nothing the Saudis would love more than for us to oust Hussein.  There's nothing the French would love more.  There's nothing the Iranians would love more.  They all hate him.  BUT, this is international politics.  They can't just be grateful that we're getting rid of him, they want to make it look like they're doing US a favor when they finally give the nod.  That way, we take care of their (and our) problem, and they make it look like we owe THEM one.  It's distasteful to deal with, but that's how it works.

Don't worry about another attack.  If one comes, it comes and we deal with it.  And one might not come - consider that possibility.  As for the rest of the world (except our extremely admirable British allies -- who we left in the lurch a LOT longer some 60+ years ago by the way -- and the Aussies).  Let them talk.  Because in the end, it's all alot of bluster that will - as in the past - be drowned out by the whine of our M1 gas-turbines and the thump thump thump of our Apaches.  If you ever find yourself worrying about what France or Saudi Arabia thinks, you're worrying much too much.

[Chris K.]

ASHTHECAT wrote:
>
> I remember what the President said right after
> the attacks last year.  He said, "either you're with us, or
> you're with the terrorists."  It p**ses me off to no
> end when I hear all of this bulls**t about all of the
> other countries condemning a possible attack.  They're
> nothing but a bunch of cowards!... I
> completely and totally agree with the President and
> Prime Minister Blair.  I voted for Bush because I have
> faith in him and think that MOST of everything he says
> is correct.  This isn't just about America.  It
> concerns the whole world.  How many of those other countries
> do you think would come crying to the United States if
> they were the ones who were attacked?  Every f**king
> one of them.  Oh well.  If America and England
> (hopefully Australia too)decide to go it alone then so
> be it.

First off, I never voted for Bush. But that was because I was not of legal age to vote at that particular time, and if so I would have voted for George W. He seems to be doing a fine job at the moment and is handiling this situation on the "War on Terror" the best he can do. A real leader.

I do feel that another terrorist attack will come again somewhere else. But I must dissagre with what I quoted from ASHTHECAT. Bush said "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists", but that is quite a harsh statement to make. Granted, we are getting some support (i.e. England is one of them), but for those who wish not to be involved I would not so quickly as to label them "cowards". Rather, the situation has nothing to do with them and therefore want to remain neutral. The September 11 incident was an attack on America, and is considered to be an American involvement. Europe, or any other country for that matter, was not attacked (at least not yet, as we seem to feel) so they are not involved.

But even we, in the past, have stayed neutral whenever one country is at war and we become involved when we are threatened with war. If I remember my history a bit (and you can correct me if I am wrong), back when England and Germany were at war during the rise of World War 2, England tried to get the United States involved. However, as much as the USA going through the 'Lend-Lease Act' with Britian, the United States remained neutral. That is, until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. And since both Germany and Japan were allies, the USA thus was able to go to war against those countries and support Britian. This is just one small example to go by for a moment.

The biggest question is why do we need to join forces with other countries for assistance, even though the USA is considered to be the most powerful country in the world and a heavy millitary and weapons division? Yes, one can say this isn't just about America but involves the entire world as well. But, from what I see, it seems America is the only place that has been attacked.

This is indeed a controversial subject and I might be getting out of my league here, but as much as I have disageed with ASHTHECAT's complaint I must say he has started an interesting discussion. I just hope I don't get hung for my statements. That's happened before.

If America and England go at it alone, then I guess that will be it as ASHTHECAT said earlier.

[J.R.]

I saw this attack coming. There are so many militant anti-America groups out there and New York was the most obvious target. It was only inevitable. As for Iraq, I figure let's clean house while we're over there, teach those sumb***hes we mean business. I am glad George W. is in the WHite House (I didn't vote because that would have meant getting off the couch). I disagree with some of his policies but when it comes to leading a nation at war I'd pick him over Gore any day. And I'm getting tired of Europe's attitude. "Oh, let's just forget America saved our weird-smelling (ever notice people from foreign countries smell weird?) butts in WW1 and 2, and make it our perogative to be pricks whenever they want to do anything!".

[ASHTHECAT]

I was correct in stating that this post would generate a lot of replies.  I posted it an hour and a half ago and already there are 4 posts, most of them agreeing with me.  Thank you for that.  When typing it out I had a feeling that the comment about the other countries being cowards would create the most controversy.  I agree that that was a harsh term to use but look at what I typed about the police.  What would you think of a fellow police officer who was it seemed on the outside, afraid to take the perp down?  Would you call him or her a coward?  I sure as hell would!  Then again I'm a realist and I tend to live in the moment (seeing the big picture as well) and in the moment of truth in a situation like that I tend to be a little harsh.  Most people would be too.  I guess it just comes from my "American arrogance" as my  Australian girlfriend is so fond of pointing out.  As for quoting Bush's statement about being with us or with the terrorists, he said it, not me.  He put it in very simple terms.  When it comes to dealing with these worthless SUBHUMAN terrorists I think that seeing things simply in black and white and as bluntly as possible is the only way to go.  I heard a long time ago that America was the "police officer for the rest of the world."  Someone has to do it and if that means us, then in the immortal words of Happy Harry Hard-on...."So be it!"

[Luke Bannon]

I don't take any sides with any of this issue. I just hope that all our world leaders can do their best to bring this issue to an end peacefully with no further loss of life.

[J.R.]

You haven't lived on our own planet Earth long have you, Luke? People are violent and that's that. Watching B-movies should have taught you that lesson. :)

[Neville]

Looks that I'm a minority. I don't think Iraq should be attacked, at least we must have solid evidence of what they are doing. And no, a blurred aerial shot of something being build is not enough. If the USA have real solid evidence, why not showing it at the UN? If that didn't grant more countries to support the attack, I don't know what would.

About, Bush, I don't like him at all. OK, he's been doing a great job rebuilding the psyche of the USA after the attacks, but the more time passes, the more his external politics grow more extravagant. First the US attacked Afghanistan. OK, good job, Al Qaeda on the run and the Taliban out of power. But Bin Laden has escaped, the side effects (I refuse to use the expression "collateral damage") on civilians have been horrible (and the attempts by US to hide them do not help), and worst of all, Afghanistan is very far from becoming a violence-free place.

Also there's the Palestinian problem. Previous US presidents have tutored during the last decades peace plans for the region. What happens now? Israel has the more phanatised president ever (for those who don't know it, he may be prossecuted in Europe for a couple of masacres years ago), who quite obviously has no peace plan for the problem. Sharon has disguised his objectives (politically eliminate Arafat, destroy any possibility of Palestina of becoming independent) as Anti-terrorism and thus obteined an unvaluable help from Bush.
And no, I am not condoning Palestinian terrorism. While the Palestinians have the right to have their own country, this doesn't make their actions the least acceptable.

And now, Bush is using the first aniversary of the NY attacks to appeal to the US people sense of revenge to obtain the support for an attack many countries in the world, many americans and even many republicans think unnecessary. I found it quite sickening, really. Even if Saddam is deposed, what is going to happen to Irak afterwards? If the US are going to depose Saddam Hussein, it is their moral responsability to create a solid government afterwards, if not for the Iraqis, who have suffered a Stern dictatorship for many years (and Hussein had plenty of support from the US), for the sake of the region stability.

[ASHTHECAT]

Ok Neville.  I remember you from the previous posts I've placed in the past.  You seem to always disagree with everyone and that is your right.  You like to take other people's comments and then quote them and then turn it around to your favor.  I'm not buying into ANY OF IT!  Do you honestly think the Bush administration would consider attacking Iraq for no reason?  Believe me when I say that the most powerful country in the world wouldn't attack Iraq unless we were 100% sure that this worthless piece of trash (hussein...name doesn't deserve capitalization) was developing weapons of mass destruction.  He ranks right up there with bin laden(name doesn't deserve capitalization either).  In my opinion they are insects that should be stepped on and crushed.  And after they are crushed, someone should take a magnifying glass and scorch their bodies, erasing all proof of their existense.  They both are evil incarnate and must be exterminated at ALL costs.

[ASHTHECAT]

One more thing.  As for the Palestinians, I can understand where they are coming from and in a way I do sympathize with them.  I try to be universal and allow myself to see their mindset.  Let me tell you something else.  I'm not Jewish but I, and probably all of the rest of you know that the Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years.  If you need a lesson watch Schindler's List (which I just finished watching earlier tonight).  After all of the s**t Jews have been through they deserve the state of Israel that they are currently living in.  It just happens to be their misfortune that they are surrounded by most of the arab world.  It's like finding the perfect house that happens to be in the WORST neighborhood.  I see it both ways.  I completely understand the Palestinians plight as do I the Jews.  But in the end IT'S NOT FOR ANY OF US TO DECIDE.  There's nothing you or I can do about it so I figure it's best left alone.  If I have offended you....I'm not sorry and I never will be.  That's MY right.

[ASHTHECAT]

Man, I don't know what's gotten into me!  I'm not usually one to raise a ruckus but yesterday's anniversary touched a nerve in me as I'm sure it did most of you.  I find that I tend to vent my frustration on world issues and other people's idiocy and shortsightedness in the form of writing.  I would ask for your forgiveness of my opinion on previous posts but to do that would be wrong.  My using profanity is the only thing I ask forgiveness for.  Have a great f**king day!

[ASHTHECAT]

And yes Neville, I fully expect you to come back and rip on me!!  I take it all in stride!

[Joe Schmo]

The government acts as if they are doing their best to keep us safe,this is a crock! chasing the taliban out of afghanastan did little or nothing to stop terrorism. we were helping our "allies" the northern alliance,don't they know by now that our middle eastern "allies" are almost always our enemy in a few years? the government says that there is about 5,000 people with ties to terrorists in the usa,I've heard experts say it's more like 100,000. the only reason they have not started suicide bombing on a regular basis is they are not rooted in deep enough here,and they don't want to see their friends stop getting visas. it doesn't take a very smart person to see that it's not a good idea to let people in the usa who dance in the streets of their country chanting "death to america". I've met some middle eastern people who are very kind,but there's still at least millions of them that want to kill us all. the day after the attack,they should have shut the borders down and rounded up everybody here on visas and checked them out good. I feel bad for any peaceful people this would affect,but it's not our fault that so many of them are insane suicide bombers. I was just reading an article,in june,al gore's luggage was searched twice at the airport,I've also heard time and again how they search old ladies and send arabs right through. all this "equal rights" s**t is pure nonsense and is making the usa look like fools. it makes me sick that the government will risk thousands or mabey even millions of american lives so they can give a bunch of terrorists visas!

[Joe Schmo]

another thing that bothers me is,the government says that buying drugs funds terrorism. why don't we just do like they do and send them billions of dollars,weapons and visas so they can come over here and take flying lessons. we are also still buying oil from saddam hussein. atta was on a "terrorist watch list" while he was taking flight lessons,I guess that means they watched him go in and out of the country for years then watched him fly a plane into the world trade center. I can't believe that some people think the government is doing everything they can to prevent terrorism.