You missed my post about why are other countries just happy to let the US take the bill. I mean, France isn't going to move on funding a war against terrorism. If every country would, think how easy it would be to get everyone on the terrorist back.. but then you got country politics that get in the way of a real problem. Most countries don't get that the speed of the terrorists is greater than the speed of negotiations at the world level. You agree with that don't you?
If the US economy does dump, guess what happens to the world? It goes down with it. I don't see why some countries find it so hard to understand that if one economy goes down, other economies suffer. Wait, Tony Blair understands that part of it. He is on the ball. France had an economy with Iraq? Maybe that is the reason they are slow to help the US? I don't know for sure, but something is messed up in how some people think about real problems. Maybe it isn't a real problem unless that country experiences an attack? This is the first time the US will be with Russia in the war against terrorism since the Cold War ended. I wouldn't doubt France and England will be on Osamas list of, bleed their economy dry campaign. I believe the US had something to do with the loss of the Russian economy.
Yeah, they are the lowest humans I have ever had the misfortune to know. Remember 911? Think Bush does? I'd say he knows about it.
KharmaDog, are you Canadian? Do you realize how the US economy works? It is capitalism. The economy withstood the test of WWII. The Atomic bombs were dropped to stop the 1:1 Japanese / American death rate that was going on during the final hours of the war in 1945. The US won't drop in a year. It actually seeks to exceed projections to withstand any force. Private businesses do help the government in war times, and they are willing to give their expertise. I just hope Osama doesn't realize it too late.
Originally posted by KharmaDog"[B]In the end, force does change a person's actions if words don't work. Words weren't working. Why else did the UN need 16 resolutions in 10 years?
"-Hitler and Stalin would agree with you, Martin Luther King and Ghandi might not. Also the UN resolutions were working. The country was buckling. No doubt it would have taken longer. But less americans and Iraqi's would have died. [/B]
you're right, I think pretty much any dictator would agree.
Do dictators take 10 years to attack or wait 26 days after 2817 people die to attack those who attack it? I don't see how Bush is showing impatience. He was elected. He ran under a need to help America's direction from the point it was heading from 1996 to 2000. There was something going wrong, and it happened. If the US does drop down in capability, the Atomic Bomb could be used to take out the general location of terrorist leaders. I wouldn't be on the side of terrorists winning in the end when it matters to everyone.
so its the democrats fault that 9/11 happened?
although bush was in office 9 months beforehand...
although bush ignored the report sent titled "osama bin laden determined to attack the u.s."
it was all clintons fault?
and if you are going to exploit the dead to prove your point, at least get the numbers right. it was 3000+ murdered.
Originally posted by kingcoot
Do dictators take 10 years to attack or wait 26 days after 2817 people die to attack those who attack it? I don't see how Bush is showing impatience. He was elected. He ran under a need to help America's direction from the point it was heading from 1996 to 2000. There was something going wrong, and it happened. If the US does drop down in capability, the Atomic Bomb could be used to take out the general location of terrorist leaders. I wouldn't be on the side of terrorists winning in the end when it matters to everyone.
And who made those same terrorists who are attacking the USA now? Thats right, USA did.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 attack, I dont see your point.
I'm just talking about the people who died in the towers... 2817 isn't enough?
It isn't Clinton's fault, it isn't Bush's fault. We saw how we were vulnerable. If we see "osama bin laden is determined to attack us" again, can we stop him? I think Bush is doing everything to keep the war at Osama's door step, and not the American civilian's door step. That has always been what I believe is going on.
Originally posted by kingcoot
I'm just talking about the people who died in the towers... 2817 isn't enough?It isn't Clinton's fault, it isn't Bush's fault. We saw how we were vulnerable. If we see "osama bin laden is determined to attack us" again, can we stop him? I think Bush is doing everything to keep the war at Osama's door step, and not the American civilian's door step. That has always been what I believe is going on.
What in the hell are you on? War on Osama? So what the bloody hell was USA doing in goddamned Iraq?
I didn't say war is justified, War is because some dictator wasn't communicating the right way. I'm Just Saying that I'll believe my president, and not the dictator of Iraq. Is that so hard to believe? And if it is, why? It isn't bleating follower-ship. I actually see reasoning behind what Bush is trying to do to the terrorists. The world community disagrees, and so the democrats must disagree with republicans... I mean some democrats disagree with republicans. That is more realistic.