Newest Conspiracy Theory from my buddy

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Newest Conspiracy Theory from my buddy (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/13/2004 10:56:53 AM EDT

"The terrorists are waiting until after the election to strike, just to embarrass George W. Bush."

I went off on him. I enjoyed this.

"Why would they do that? So they can get another 4 years of the hell he's rained down on them for another 4 years? He's blasted them all over the world for the past 3.5 years, and he'd do it for the next 4 years again. They could practically guarantee a Kerry win by attacking before the election. You flip-flopping motherfucker!"

Damn, I love it, God help me I do love it so.

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:05:10 AM EDT

[#1]

Hey doublefeed,

Let me ask you a question.

What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

Do you think they expected us to pretend it didn't happen? Or do you think they intended to start a war?

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:12:54 AM EDT

[#2]

they though they could bitch slap us.
but it didn't work.

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:13:36 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Hey doublefeed,

Let me ask you a question.

What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

Do you think they expected us to pretend it didn't happen? Or do you think they intended to start a war?

IMO, the terrorists expected capitulation or nonresponse from the US. They perpetrated several acts of war during the Clinton years, and got a few cruise missiles and tough talk in response. They expected Bush would do the same.
The purpose of 9/11 was an attempt to cripple us economically for several more years, and make us spend a lot of money defending ourselves from phantom threats. That part has worked, and I don't really know if there was a better way to go about it.
What they didn't expect was such a vigorous response.

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:28:34 AM EDT

[#4]

Thankyou.

There is the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe they intended to start a war, that there intention was to provoke a response and was all along. The fact that we didn't respond vigorously before 9/11 led to larger attacks until the desired response materialized.

I agree it was an economic attack, I disagree with you about whether the strategy since has been the best possible.

I think your friend may be right that there will be no attempt at an attack before the election, not to embarrass the president, but because things are going according to plan and they have no need to effect change.

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:33:38 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Thankyou.

There is the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe they intended to start a war, that there intention was to provoke a response and was all along. The fact that we didn't respond vigorously before 9/11 led to larger attacks until the desired response materialized.

I agree it was an economic attack, I disagree with you about whether the strategy since has been the best possible.

I think your friend may be right that there will be no attempt at an attack before the election, not to embarrass the president, but because things are going according to plan and they have no need to effect change.

Ah, I see. There is evidence in favor of both our viewpoints.
Osama himself said that he didn't expect the intensity of response that he got.
OTOH, the fact that each attack was worse than the last speaks for itself.
I am open to whatever other evidence there is in favor of your opinion that they wanted war all along.

Posted: 10/13/2004 11:56:20 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thankyou.

There is the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe they intended to start a war, that there intention was to provoke a response and was all along. The fact that we didn't respond vigorously before 9/11 led to larger attacks until the desired response materialized.

I agree it was an economic attack, I disagree with you about whether the strategy since has been the best possible.

I think your friend may be right that there will be no attempt at an attack before the election, not to embarrass the president, but because things are going according to plan and they have no need to effect change.

Ah, I see. There is evidence in favor of both our viewpoints.
Osama himself said that he didn't expect the intensity of response that he got.
OTOH, the fact that each attack was worse than the last speaks for itself.
I am open to whatever other evidence there is in favor of your opinion that they wanted war all along.

You both may want to read this: www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:01:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

They did it to get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia (why do you think most of the terrorists were Saudis?).

And guess what? They pretty much got what they wanted. Most U.S. troops have been removed from Saudi Arabia

... of course they also got a bunch of things they didn't want

- but in terms of the specific objectives that Bin laden claimed to have before 9/11, they really did succeed in getting the U.S. out of the "holy" Saudi lands. Of course now the U.S. is occupying "holy" Iraqi lands, so they're still pissed. Idiots

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:02:33 PM EDT

[#8]

I am hoping GWB goes nuclear

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:05:02 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Hey doublefeed,

Let me ask you a question.

What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

Do you think they expected us to pretend it didn't happen? Or do you think they intended to start a war?

Duh… NO

The obvious answer is the terrorist had been conditioned by our prior weak responses to believe there would be more of the same from US

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:05:29 PM EDT

[#10]

DK,

I agree completely, pulling out of Saudi to pursue the Iraq campaign was a strategic mistake IMO.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:07:27 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
DK,

I agree completely, pulling out of Saudi to pursue the Iraq campaign was a strategic mistake IMO.

I disagree the Saudis have been far more pro-active in fighting terrorist since the US pull out. They have to be to survive.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:09:16 PM EDT

[#12]

I believe it was more along a symbolic/economic attack, hence the World Trade Center, Pentagon, possible White House. If they just wanted a war, 4 planes into 4 crowded Football / Baseball stadiums could have left 75,000 plus dead. That would have all the ‘War’ they could handle, and then some.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:19:02 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I believe it was more along a symbolic/economic attack, hence the World Trade Center, Pentagon, possible White House. If they just wanted a war, 4 planes into 4 crowded Football / Baseball stadiums could have left 75,000 plus dead. That would have all the ‘War’ they could handle, and then some.

On any given day there were up to 50,000 people in the World Trade Center alone. They wanted to hit symbolic targets, cause economic disruption, AND to kill as many people as possible. Where are you going to get the highest concentration of people in one place... in a tall building?

They simply believed we would react as we had in the past... or in other words we WOULD NOT react.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:38:20 PM EDT

[#14]

So those of you who think they expected us not to react, what was the point?

They died killing us just for the sake of killing us? I find that hard to believe.

If they intend to destroy the west they'd need to effect change in the world.

The targets were almost cetainly the towers, the white house and the capital building, the pentagon was a secondary target.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:40:56 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
So those of you who think they expected us not to react, what was the point?

They died killing us just for the sake of killing us? I find that hard to believe.

If they intend to destroy the west they'd need to effect change in the world.

The targets were almost cetainly the towers, the white house and the capital building, the pentagon was a secondary target.

Read the link I posted. You are treating the terrorist as though they were acting rationally. They were not.
Link (Again)

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:54:25 PM EDT

[#16]

No one knows what they are planning. We can't infiltrate their groups, and are woefully behind on translating our recordings. All statements about when/where/how are guesses. The only thing most AQ attacks have in common are the synchronization of events (WTC-Pentagon, The Two Embassies during the embassy attack, two jets in Russia blown up at the same time). Basically, we just have to watch the perimeter and make NO assumptions about what will happen next. We can harden as many targets as possible, but trying to guess when/where and beginning to operate along those lines may cause us to make assumptions that will cause us to miss preventing the "real" attack.

Posted: 10/13/2004 12:57:33 PM EDT

[#17]

Okay, my question; what possible gain do they realize by actually wanting a war with the worlds most trained and armed military?

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:17:41 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Okay, my question; what possible gain do they realize by actually wanting a war with the worlds most trained and armed military?

72 virgins

little did they know, they all look like this

and thats why they were still virgins

[nelson] HA HA [/nelson]

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:22:53 PM EDT

[#19]

Cantor Fitzgerald and the Pentagon were deeply involved in strategic planning regarding terrorism and it's roots. Cantor was a Jewish firm headquartered in the WTC. It's no coincidence that the Pentagon was hit either. The attacks had very specific targets that added to the financial turmoil of just taking the WTC down.

Our response needs to be vigorous and deadly but not viewed as overly so. Collateral damange will diminish as we learn how to fight this war. Eventually it is economic. Fundamentalists demonize western ways and mostly don't want their women's role to change.

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:24:03 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, my question; what possible gain do they realize by actually wanting a war with the worlds most trained and armed military?

72 virgins

little did they know, they all look like this and thats why they were still virgins

[nelson] HA HA [/nelson]

Now that's funny...I don't care who you are!

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:39:12 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Okay, my question; what possible gain do they realize by actually wanting a war with the worlds most trained and armed military?

I had thought, perhaps, that they were trying to foment a world war between the religions.
IIRC OBLs stated goal had always been to get the U.S. out of Saudi.

What the hell do terrorists care if they start a war, they generally don't have a country to defend, and those that do, simply sponsor it rather than have direct involvmen. It's like a deniable black op for a country with no real strategic power.

Too bad things are too f'd up right now to knock over Iran while we're at it.

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:41:12 PM EDT

[#22]

They thought we were weak. They saw Clinton disarm part of our military. They didn't expect the response they got from Bush. But...................Kerry could change things back to us being weak again.

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:47:46 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, my question; what possible gain do they realize by actually wanting a war with the worlds most trained and armed military?

I had thought, perhaps, that they were trying to foment a world war between the religions.
IIRC OBLs stated goal had always been to get the U.S. out of Saudi.

What the hell do terrorists care if they start a war, they generally don't have a country to defend, and those that do, simply sponsor it rather than have direct involvmen. It's like a deniable black op for a country with no real strategic power.

Too bad things are too f'd up right now to knock over Iran while we're at it.

I guess a World War through relgion would be plausible. I just don't see how their acts would get us out of Saudi.

Posted: 10/13/2004 1:50:25 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
they thought they could bitch slap us.
but it didn't work.

AMEN!! FUCK WITH THE BEST... DIE LIKE THE REST.

FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE HORNS

"Your enemy is your enemy, regardless of the form it takes. Eliminate the threat, don't debate about your target."

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:03:56 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

I guess a World War through relgion would be plausible. I just don't see how their acts would get us out of Saudi.

I didn't say it made sense, I said it was a stated goal.
The way terrorism works, when it does, is like physical torture. The attacks go on, until the target agrees to meet some specific objective. In this case, the terrorists say get out of Saudi, or we will hit you. We don't get out of Saudi, they hit us. Then they make a statement. We either do as they say, or they hit us again.
The only way to meet the attacks is to stand firm and not negotiate. When you negotiate, you give them power, and the attacks will continue.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:10:13 PM EDT

[#26]

Three things.
Revenge for Desert Fox
Troops out of Saudi Arabia and a removal of support for the Saud family
Stop supporting Israel.

People don't seem to realize how angry the arab world was at Desert Fox. Which, if y'all forget, was Bill clinton bombing Iraq the day of his impeachment. The arab world saw that as, "Hey, I got a blow job and now I will kill some arabs to cover up for it" That was the main impetus for 9/11

While the troops are out of saudi arabia, we still support the sauds. I am kinda on OBL's side here. Fuck the Sauds

And on Israel, they got a total back fire. Bush now feels a kindred spirit with the Israelis and the arabs lost any support they had from the Bush as far as the Palestinian issue.

Opinions and assholes.
except I am right.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:11:23 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I guess a World War through relgion would be plausible. I just don't see how their acts would get us out of Saudi.

I didn't say it made sense, I said it was a stated goal.
The way terrorism works, when it does, is like physical torture. The attacks go on, until the target agrees to meet some specific objective. In this case, the terrorists say get out of Saudi, or we will hit you. We don't get out of Saudi, they hit us. Then they make a statement. We either do as they say, or they hit us again.
The only way to meet the attacks is to stand firm and not negotiate. When you negotiate, you give them power, and the attacks will continue.

I'm well aware of how / why terrorism works. I guess I was trying to rationalize how the attacks would result in an action of getting out of Saudi when I know damn well our (Western) rationalization doesn't work.

My first inclination is they have no rationale what-so-ever and just have a deep inherant hatedred for the West. They had operated with relative impunity for so long and decided to "push the envelope".

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:32:14 PM EDT

[#28]

Perhaps their goal was based on history. Look at the rebuilding the US (and other world powers) did in both Japan and Germany after WWII. 60 years later, both countries are now in the G8 and on the UN Security council (I think). They (the terrorists) knew we would dump million, perhaps billions of $$ building physical and econimic infrastructure in Iraq and Afganistan. I know soldiers in both places and they all say we (the US) is replacing and rebuilding far better than what was there to begin with. From an economic standpoint the best thing a failing country can do is attack the US. Think about Granada, Nicaragua etc. we would probably do the same for Cuba but Casto has never had the stones to pull the trigger.

IMHO

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:35:24 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Perhaps their goal was based on history. Look at the rebuilding the US (and other world powers) did in both Japan and Germany after WWII. 60 years later, both countries are now in the G8 and on the UN Security council (I think). They (the terrorists) knew we would dump million, perhaps billions of $$ building physical and econimic infrastructure in Iraq and Afganistan. I know soldiers in both places and they all say we (the US) is replacing and rebuilding far better than what was there to begin with. From an economic standpoint the best thing a failing country can do is attack the US. Think about Granada, Nicaragua etc. we would probably do the same for Cuba but Casto has never had the stones to pull the trigger.

IMHO

I think if that were the case, there wouldn't be so much insurgent activity still going on. I'm sure the good people of Iraq are eyeing that, though.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:36:41 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Thankyou.

There is the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe they intended to start a war, that there intention was to provoke a response and was all along. The fact that we didn't respond vigorously before 9/11 led to larger attacks until the desired response materialized.

I agree it was an economic attack, I disagree with you about whether the strategy since has been the best possible.

I think your friend may be right that there will be no attempt at an attack before the election, not to embarrass the president, but because things are going according to plan and they have no need to effect change.

I disagree with both of you....I think they were making good on their promise to strike the WTC, and they did not predict the collapse of the buildings. That, for them, was just a bonus.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:37:08 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Three things.
Revenge for Desert Fox
Troops out of Saudi Arabia and a removal of support for the Saud family
Stop supporting Israel.

People don't seem to realize how angry the arab world was at Desert Fox. Which, if y'all forget, was Bill clinton bombing Iraq the day of his impeachment. The arab world saw that as, "Hey, I got a blow job and now I will kill some arabs to cover up for it" That was the main impetus for 9/11

While the troops are out of saudi arabia, we still support the sauds. I am kinda on OBL's side here. Fuck the Sauds

And on Israel, they got a total back fire. Bush now feels a kindred spirit with the Israelis and the arabs lost any support they had from the Bush as far as the Palestinian issue.

Opinions and assholes.
except I am right.

I don't know enough about this action as I should. Was their any legitimacy to this action or was it "Wag the Dog" as people suggested?

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:37:15 PM EDT

[#32]

They have millions, and billions to spend, and they spend it by building pools and golf courses and resorts in the middle of the desert. Blow up the kings kid if you want to change something. Kill off the dictator, if you want to change things. Hell, it worked in Iran right?

TeuffelHunden1775, I wasn't trying to lecture to you, sorry if it sounded that way.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:40:47 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
They have millions, and billions to spend, and they spend it by building pools and golf courses and resorts in the middle of the desert. Blow up the kings kid if you want to change something. Kill off the dictator, if you want to change things. Hell, it worked in Iran right?

TeuffelHunden1775, I wasn't trying to lecture to you, sorry if it sounded that way.

No worry's! It's a good conversation and some things that I flat do not understand. I enjoy hearing / reading others opinions.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:43:52 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thankyou.

There is the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe they intended to start a war, that there intention was to provoke a response and was all along. The fact that we didn't respond vigorously before 9/11 led to larger attacks until the desired response materialized.

I agree it was an economic attack, I disagree with you about whether the strategy since has been the best possible.

I think your friend may be right that there will be no attempt at an attack before the election, not to embarrass the president, but because things are going according to plan and they have no need to effect change.

I disagree with both of you....I think they were making good on their promise to strike the WTC, and they did not predict the collapse of the buildings. That, for them, was just a bonus.

It's the impetus, not the result. BTW, what promise?

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:51:25 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Three things.
Revenge for Desert Fox
Troops out of Saudi Arabia and a removal of support for the Saud family
Stop supporting Israel.

People don't seem to realize how angry the arab world was at Desert Fox. Which, if y'all forget, was Bill clinton bombing Iraq the day of his impeachment. The arab world saw that as, "Hey, I got a blow job and now I will kill some arabs to cover up for it" That was the main impetus for 9/11

While the troops are out of saudi arabia, we still support the sauds. I am kinda on OBL's side here. Fuck the Sauds

And on Israel, they got a total back fire. Bush now feels a kindred spirit with the Israelis and the arabs lost any support they had from the Bush as far as the Palestinian issue.

Opinions and assholes.
except I am right.

I don't know enough about this action as I should. Was their any legitimacy to this action or was it "Wag the Dog" as people suggested?

It was the same justification Bush used. But the timing was ridiculous and there was no desire to do anything substantial or decisive. It was Wag the Dog to the "T". The entire arab world knew it and it pissed them off. Even those who hated saddam.
Of course, the press will never talk about it.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:52:40 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I disagree with both of you....I think they were making good on their promise to strike the WTC, and they did not predict the collapse of the buildings. That, for them, was just a bonus.

It's the impetus, not the result. BTW, what promise?

They failed to knock it over in '93, so they came back to finish the job.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:56:59 PM EDT

[#37]

One thing that many folks forget is that these guys are idiots. They are uneducated by western standards. Their entire education consists of memorizing the Koran. They do not understand world politics.

In WWII, Hitler thought that the USA was a kind of "backwater" place that had no worldwide influence. When warned that the USA might go to war against Germany, he basically said, "So what. They do not matter."

It was an example of how many of the world's bad guys believe too much of their own BS. Hitler vastly underestimated the USA. So has Oshama.

Oshama thought we were a weak-willed nation that would fold like the French. He misunderstood. He was surprised by the actions of George Bush.

But I wasn't. I knew George was a Texan.

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:57:56 PM EDT

[#38]

well are history shows we turn the other cheek alot. but piss off the good old american spirit there hell to pay. and i don't include those bleeding heart libs that think there were not loved enough as a child why they blew up the wtc

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:59:01 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

It was the same justification Bush used. But the timing was ridiculous and there was no desire to do anything substantial or decisive. It was Wag the Dog to the "T". The entire arab world knew it and it pissed them off. Even those who hated saddam.
Of course, the press will never talk about it.

So, his (Clinton's) justification was terrorist links and he saw fit to lob a few bombs at them?

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:59:05 PM EDT

[#40]

they have been non perment memebers

Posted: 10/13/2004 2:59:31 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Hey doublefeed,

Let me ask you a question.

What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

Do you think they expected us to pretend it didn't happen? Or do you think they intended to start a war?

They expected us to get bogged down in Afghanistan like the Soviet Union. We beat their asses there, so now we're bogged down in Iraq...

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:02:14 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
One thing that many folks forget is that these guys are idiots. They are uneducated by western standards. Their entire education consists of memorizing the Koran. They do not understand world politics.

In WWII, Hitler thought that the USA was a kind of "backwater" place that had no worldwide influence. When warned that the USA might go to war against Germany, he basically said, "So what. They do not matter."

It was an example of how many of the world's bad guys believe too much of their own BS. Hitler vastly underestimated the USA. So has Oshama.

Oshama thought we were a weak-willed nation that would fold like the French. He misunderstood. He was surprised by the actions of George Bush.

But I wasn't. I knew George was a Texan.

You think that OBL was that stupid even after having dealt with US when we supplied him with intel, training and weapons during the Afgan / Russia deal?

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:07:29 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey doublefeed,

Let me ask you a question.

What in your opinion was the objective of 9/11? Why did they attack the US on our soil?

Do you think they expected us to pretend it didn't happen? Or do you think they intended to start a war?

They expected us to get bogged down in Afghanistan like the Soviet Union. We beat their asses there, so now we're bogged down in Iraq...

Bogged Down

Anybody who thought it was going to be a walk in the park, deserves what they got.
You don't just knock a guy out of power, and then the flowers bloom, and birds start chirping, and you go home to your girl.

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:13:27 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Bogged Down
Anybody who thought it was going to be a walk in the park, deserves what they got.
You don't just knock a guy out of power, and then the flowers bloom, and birds start chirping, and you go home to your girl.

Yeah! What he said! BTW....just when did we finally get to pull all of our troops out of Japan and Germany, following the post WWII occupations?

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:14:08 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

You think that OBL was that stupid even after having dealt with US when we supplied him with intel, training and weapons during the Afgan / Russia deal?

I didn't say stupid. I said that he was, and is, uneducated.

His world consists of the study of the Koran and constant repetitions of the teachings of Islam. He believes that Allah is on his side, so no one can defeat him.

He is right that Allah is on his side, but he misunderstands Allah. He doesn't realize that Allah is a demon and hates him. Oshama and all his followers are being decieved and led to hell.

They will not win. They are not "better" than the west that they oppose. Their culture is a failed culture that has run it's course hundreds of years ago. And they have awakened a gaint, as the Japanese said, to their horror.

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:22:17 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Bogged Down
Anybody who thought it was going to be a walk in the park, deserves what they got.
You don't just knock a guy out of power, and then the flowers bloom, and birds start chirping, and you go home to your girl.

Yeah! What he said! BTW....just when did we finally get to pull all of our troops out of Japan and Germany, following the post WWII occupations?

I'm going to go out on a limb here Gunny, and say that was a rhetorical question.

Semper Fi!

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:29:38 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:

You think that OBL was that stupid even after having dealt with US when we supplied him with intel, training and weapons during the Afgan / Russia deal?

I didn't say stupid. I said that he was, and is, uneducated.

His world consists of the study of the Koran and constant repetitions of the teachings of Islam. He believes that Allah is on his side, so no one can defeat him.

He is right that Allah is on his side, but he misunderstands Allah. He doesn't realize that Allah is a demon and hates him. Oshama and all his followers are being decieved and led to hell.

They will not win. They are not "better" than the west that they oppose. Their culture is a failed culture that has run it's course hundreds of years ago. And they have awakened a gaint, as the Japanese said, to their horror.

This brings me to another point. We backed both, Osama and Saddam, and they tried to bite the hand that fed them. So, did we screw them over to piss them off or, are they just that filled with hate toward the West?

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:38:51 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Bogged Down
Anybody who thought it was going to be a walk in the park, deserves what they got.
You don't just knock a guy out of power, and then the flowers bloom, and birds start chirping, and you go home to your girl.

Yeah! What he said! BTW....just when did we finally get to pull all of our troops out of Japan and Germany, following the post WWII occupations?

I hope you arent comparing the occupation of Japan and Germany (by the way, we're still in those countries) to whats happening now. How many post war Germans/Japanese blew themeselves up on a daily basis?

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:41:27 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
DK,

I agree completely, pulling out of Saudi to pursue the Iraq campaign was a strategic mistake IMO.

I disagree the Saudis have been far more pro-active in fighting terrorist since the US pull out. They have to be to survive.

We didn't pull out of Saudi to wage the Iraq campaign. Part of the reason that we waged the Iraq campaign was so that we could pull forces engaged in Southern Watch out of Iraq.Our staying there wasn't doing us or the Saudis any good. In fact we promised the Saudis we wouldn't stick around for very long after things wrapped up in 1991. That pledge was OBE on the ground after the cease-fire agreement. Woodward's "The Commanders" has a pretty good section on the Cheney-King Saud meetings.

Posted: 10/13/2004 3:45:29 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
One thing that many folks forget is that these guys are idiots. They are uneducated by western standards. Their entire education consists of memorizing the Koran. They do not understand world politics.

While the AQ foot soldiers are almost universally uneducated, the senior folks are fairly sophisticated in their political knowledge. This doesn't mean that they necessarily understand Western or, more specifically, American viewpoints(a tough divide to cross) they have a pretty good idea about there corner of the world.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Newest Conspiracy Theory from my buddy (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us