those are the two major decisions he's made....and as much as I hate war...we did need to take out the Taliban.
And I'm questioning the understanding and the motivation, surely that is the ongoing concern for future decisions...?
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
okay, you missed it - where did he solidify that belief? on his prayer rug...and his contemplation of the "message" he received. i am not arguing here. just talking about how a statement about asking god for guidance leads to the conclusion that someone is doing something based on what god has led, guided, or told them to do when the action is started to relieve the situation for which guidance (from god) was asked.
guess I need another cup of coffee...please clarify for me...no bad intent on this post by the way.
but afgah?? seriously? you didnt see the taliban and el queda as a threat to american security? they attacked us remember ?
Al Queda yes. But what id Al Queda? These people came out of Saudi Arabia. The Taleban weren't a threat to America. And George Bush doesn't believe that Osama Bin Laden is a threat to America as he's said so. According to George Bush, he doesn't give Bin Laden a seconds thought. Anyway, I don't believe that bombing the crap out of a country is the right way to apprehend a bunch of suspected criminals.
Remember that the Taleban didn't say they would protect Bin laden, just that they wouldn't seek him out and hand him over.
And don't forget that since the routing of the Taleban in 2002, Osama Bin laden is still at large today, so i don't understand your point.
really? what dont you understand about taking out the taliban? I will be happy to explain it to you
I'm not arguing that it was or right wrong :rolleyes: like I say even a muppet like Bush may occaisonally make the right decision, I'm questioning whether or not you are comfortable with "how" the decision making process is carried out....?
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Al Queda yes. But what id Al Queda? These people came out of Saudi Arabia.
you mean the terrorists who attacked us? yes they did. but the saudi government was did not assist in planning or harboring them. as far as I know. I have read reports that they hang el queda members all the time. by no means am I cheerleading for the saudis. I dont trust them at all. but what should we do invade them?
we disgree on alot but this is something we are way off on. the taliban allowed el queda
to function, train, grow. el queda was free to do whatever it wanted. not only was the taliban a threat to america, but to britain as well. why would you be ok with a country allowing sworn enemies of me and you to have a base of which they can attack us?
And George Bush doesn't believe that Osama Bin Laden is a threat to America as he's said so. According to George Bush, he doesn't give Bin Laden a seconds thought.
I'm not arguing that it was or right wrong :rolleyes: like I say even a muppet like Bush may occaisonally make the right decision, I'm questioning whether or not you are comfortable with "how" the decision making process is carried out....?
"how" he came to that decision? we were attacked. thats how. whether or not god helped him decide, the fact still remains.
Al Queda yes. But what id Al Queda? These people came out of Saudi Arabia. The Taleban weren't a threat to America. And George Bush doesn't believe that Osama Bin Laden is a threat to America as he's said so. According to George Bush, he doesn't give Bin Laden a seconds thought. Anyway, I don't believe that bombing the crap out of a country is the right way to apprehend a bunch of suspected criminals.
Remember that the Taleban didn't say they would protect Bin laden, just that they wouldn't seek him out and hand him over.
And don't forget that since the routing of the Taleban in 2002, Osama Bin laden is still at large today, so i don't understand your point.
not many on this board understand your far far left views...but I do..and agree with 99.99% of what you say..but......the Taliban clearly gave a refuge to Osama.....and would have continued to till they were removed. I hate war...last resort always...but the Taliban had to go.
not many on this board understand your far far left views...but I do..and agree with 99.99% of what you say..but......the Taliban clearly gave a refuge to Osama.....and would have continued to till they were removed. I hate war...last resort always...but the Taliban had to go.
And where is Osama now that the Taleban have been removed? Oh yeah, he's still free at large like before.
"how" he came to that decision? we were attacked. thats how. whether or not god helped him decide, the fact still remains.
No... being attacked was the first milestone.... invade Afghanistan was the eventual response... the process is everything that happens in between... and that either gives you confidence in any future decision or it doesn't...
I could add 2+2 and get 4 through one process and it would be right every time, if I used another process it would be wrong for every other decision and I'd have been lucky with the first one, there's a difference.
Are you saying you agree about how he goes about making decisions or that you agree with the one on Afghanistan?
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
And where is Osama now that the Taleban have been removed? Oh yeah, he's still free at large like before.
you are correct. biggest fuck up ever, even bigger then Iraq. IMO of course.
osama ran over to the "tribal" areas of afgah and pakistan. these areas have been lawless for hundreds of years.
but osama still being free is besides the point. taliban gave osama an entire country to set up shop. a internationally recognized government was protecting him. that had to stop.
now osama is traveling from mut hut to cave in the remotest area on the planet.
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Are you saying you agree about how he goes about making decisions or that you agree with the one on Afghanistan?
I agree with the one on afgah.
IF (if if if) Saddam had WMDs and was harboring el queda I might have been on board with that as well. turns out neither were true. so I am not on board with that decision to invade.
taliban gave osama an entire country to set up shop. a internationally recognized government was protecting him. that had to stop.
now osama is traveling from mut hut to cave in the remotest area on the planet.
Were they 'protecting him' though?
And if Bush wanted him caught then he would have been by now. Perhaps he's more useful alive though, because we all need an enemy with a recognized face to justify our 'war with no end', right?
And if Bush wanted him caught then he would have been by now.[\quote]bush did fuck up but not getting him in afgahistan but then again its not as easy you you think it is.
And if Bush wanted him caught then he would have been by now. Perhaps he's more useful alive though, because we all need an enemy with a recognized face to justify our 'war with no end', right?
Nail, head, hit. W needs to keep people scared of something otherwise he loses power.
Try putting your blind hatred on the shelf for a second and think about what you just wrote.
If Bush were to catch or kill Osama, his approval rating would shoot up 20% over night.
As it stands, there is virtually no power he has left to lose.
In order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man, you have to recognise it for what it is and how it's been manipulated in order to keep people playing along so far. It's not about hatred, it's about awareness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man, you have to recognise it for what it is and how it's been manipulated in order to keep people playing along so far. It's not about hatred, it's about awareness.
What makes you think I don't understand this concept? Am I asking questions about it? Have I said something incorrect about it?
Maybe it's because I disagree with it - is that it?
Seems to me you're saying that in order for me to understand this concept, I have to agree that Bush has been manipulating the people.
Is it possible for me to understand this concept, yet disagree with it? I don't believe Bush has been manipulating the people by creating Osama the boogie man.
You guys seem to think that Bush purposely let Osama go, becuase Osama gives him a reason to perpetuate his foreign policy.
But let me ask you then. If Bush were to catch or kill Osama, would he not gain significant credibility? Would he not go down in history as the American president who was steadfast in his effort to catch perhaps one of the most hated and sought after men in American history???
You guys seem to think that Bush purposely let Osama go, becuase Osama gives him a reason to perpetuate his foreign policy.
I don't believe he purposely let him go. I believe there's been a lot of incompetence going down, and that they are very happy to capitalise on it, like they have capitalised on 911 for years, milking people's basest emotions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But let me ask you then. If Bush were to catch or kill Osama, would he not gain significant credibility? Would he not go down in history as the American president who was steadfast in his effort to catch perhaps one of the most hated and sought after men in American history???
No. He has had 5 years to do that but he didn't. He used those resources to invade Iraq. Had he put forth the effort he did in Iraq into eliminating Al Queda then he would have credibility, at least from me.
In order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man, you have to recognise it for what it is and how it's been manipulated in order to keep people playing along so far. It's not about hatred, it's about awareness.
have it right and or wrong. Osama is bad...really bad and needed to be removed from power....but I also think Bush (okay Cheney/Rove/etc) milk it for all its worth....ie..scaring the poor white american.
No. He has had 5 years to do that but he didn't. He used those resources to invade Iraq. Had he put forth the effort he did in Iraq into eliminating Al Queda then he would have credibility, at least from me.
I'm thinking the Bush administration would have loved to catch Osama....to think otherwise is pretty cooky.....if thats a word..but think you know what I mean.....and I just have to stop supporting JLEW and freakin right wing extremist NC fan....(-: Joking of course.
Comments
And I'm questioning the understanding and the motivation, surely that is the ongoing concern for future decisions...?
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
have a freind that's pretty religious....told me his wife and others felt the Tsunami was gods revenge.....sick.
Al Queda yes. But what id Al Queda? These people came out of Saudi Arabia. The Taleban weren't a threat to America. And George Bush doesn't believe that Osama Bin Laden is a threat to America as he's said so. According to George Bush, he doesn't give Bin Laden a seconds thought. Anyway, I don't believe that bombing the crap out of a country is the right way to apprehend a bunch of suspected criminals.
Remember that the Taleban didn't say they would protect Bin laden, just that they wouldn't seek him out and hand him over.
And don't forget that since the routing of the Taleban in 2002, Osama Bin laden is still at large today, so i don't understand your point.
I'm not arguing that it was or right wrong :rolleyes: like I say even a muppet like Bush may occaisonally make the right decision, I'm questioning whether or not you are comfortable with "how" the decision making process is carried out....?
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
we disgree on alot but this is something we are way off on. the taliban allowed el queda
to function, train, grow. el queda was free to do whatever it wanted. not only was the taliban a threat to america, but to britain as well. why would you be ok with a country allowing sworn enemies of me and you to have a base of which they can attack us?
Bush says alot of stupid things
I can live with that
"how" he came to that decision? we were attacked. thats how. whether or not god helped him decide, the fact still remains.
not many on this board understand your far far left views...but I do..and agree with 99.99% of what you say..but......the Taliban clearly gave a refuge to Osama.....and would have continued to till they were removed. I hate war...last resort always...but the Taliban had to go.
And where is Osama now that the Taleban have been removed? Oh yeah, he's still free at large like before.
No... being attacked was the first milestone.... invade Afghanistan was the eventual response... the process is everything that happens in between... and that either gives you confidence in any future decision or it doesn't...
I could add 2+2 and get 4 through one process and it would be right every time, if I used another process it would be wrong for every other decision and I'd have been lucky with the first one, there's a difference.
Are you saying you agree about how he goes about making decisions or that you agree with the one on Afghanistan?
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
osama ran over to the "tribal" areas of afgah and pakistan. these areas have been lawless for hundreds of years.
but osama still being free is besides the point. taliban gave osama an entire country to set up shop. a internationally recognized government was protecting him. that had to stop.
now osama is traveling from mut hut to cave in the remotest area on the planet.
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
IF (if if if) Saddam had WMDs and was harboring el queda I might have been on board with that as well. turns out neither were true. so I am not on board with that decision to invade.
Were they 'protecting him' though?
And if Bush wanted him caught then he would have been by now. Perhaps he's more useful alive though, because we all need an enemy with a recognized face to justify our 'war with no end', right?
this is just your opinion. no way do I believe Bush wants osama alive.
Protecting him too? Along with who? Bush? I didn't say that Bush was protecting him.
Nail, head, hit. W needs to keep people scared of something otherwise he loses power.
Try putting your blind hatred on the shelf for a second and think about what you just wrote.
If Bush were to catch or kill Osama, his approval rating would shoot up 20% over night.
As it stands, there is virtually no power he has left to lose.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What makes you think I don't understand this concept? Am I asking questions about it? Have I said something incorrect about it?
Maybe it's because I disagree with it - is that it?
Seems to me you're saying that in order for me to understand this concept, I have to agree that Bush has been manipulating the people.
Is it possible for me to understand this concept, yet disagree with it? I don't believe Bush has been manipulating the people by creating Osama the boogie man.
You guys seem to think that Bush purposely let Osama go, becuase Osama gives him a reason to perpetuate his foreign policy.
But let me ask you then. If Bush were to catch or kill Osama, would he not gain significant credibility? Would he not go down in history as the American president who was steadfast in his effort to catch perhaps one of the most hated and sought after men in American history???
I don't believe he purposely let him go. I believe there's been a lot of incompetence going down, and that they are very happy to capitalise on it, like they have capitalised on 911 for years, milking people's basest emotions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, I do.
No. He has had 5 years to do that but he didn't. He used those resources to invade Iraq. Had he put forth the effort he did in Iraq into eliminating Al Queda then he would have credibility, at least from me.
I'm thinking the Bush administration would have loved to catch Osama....to think otherwise is pretty cooky.....if thats a word..but think you know what I mean.....and I just have to stop supporting JLEW and freakin right wing extremist NC fan....(-: Joking of course.