Did U.S., U.K., etc. produce terrorists or you honestly believe that so called ...

[online.education]

U.S. financed so called terrorists in Afghanistan to begin with. U.S. still finances Pakistani intelligence while they say that many of Pakistanis are terrorists. U.S. and Saudi Arabia have a strong tie. U.K. joined U.S. to preemptively attack Iraq for no good reason. There are many other historical events that U.S., U.K., etc. financed what they call terrorists today or preemptively attacked countries for no good reason.

Do you believe that some people became what U.S., U.K. call terrorists for no good reason, without having any association with these countries, or do you believe that U.S., U.K., etc. produced terrorists (directly or indirectly)???

[Earl]

I think the US and UK funded and trained some terrorists, but I think they only fueled a fire already burning. I don't believe the US or UK created these terrorist groups, just helped them.

[Scolls]

Global strategy. Economic gain. Who cares who dies in the process? Plebs are a dime-a-dozen, man!!! I think we are just generally kept blind to what goes on at government level and sold bogus stories to appease us. Failing which, pump more alcohol into society and it'll all fade into oblivion anyway... and if that fails, raise taxes and give them something to REALLY moan about!

I wonder if Bush even really knows what his official standpoint on going into Iraq is anymore? No WMDs... oops! Ummm... humanitarian? Ousting a dictator? Uh, okay, that'll do for now...

The mind boggles how anybody could swallow any of this crap. Let's face it. North Korea's got nukes, right? Do you see Bush trying to go invade there? Like, no! Why not? ummm... he'd lose the entire force he sends there within a few short weeks? (Northern Korea's got a bloody strong military, I'm sure you're aware ~ Iraq & Afghanistan were soft targets, having already been ravaged by years of war)

Of course, we know what happened in Rwanda, and what's going on in Sudan, etc. Does he exercise the same "humanitarian" motives there? He couldn't give a rat's a$$ man!

Iraq trained terrorists? Really? Which ones? The ones who learned to fly using flight simulators inside the USA? If anything, he shoulda sent a couple of Tomahawks into those simulators, as they were the bees that stung him in the a$$, not so?

[Fenella]

U.S. financed so called terrorists in Afghanistan to begin with. U.S. still finances Pakistani intelligence while they say that many of Pakistanis are terrorists. U.S. and Saudi Arabia have a strong tie. U.K. joined U.S. to preemptively attack Iraq for no good reason. There are many other historical events that U.S., U.K., etc. financed what they call terrorists today or preemptively attacked countries for no good reason.

Do you believe that some people became what U.S., U.K. call terrorists for no good reason, without having any association with these countries, or do you believe that U.S., U.K., etc. produced terrorists (directly or indirectly)???

Presumably the US financed potential terrorists in Afghanistan to get rid of the Soviets from there, but then the people they financed turned against the west. I see no reason why the US would want to attack Afghanistan other than revenge for 9/11.

[Scolls]

Presumably the US financed potential terrorists in Afghanistan to get rid of the Soviets from there, but the then the people they financed turned against the west. I see no reason why the US would want to attack Afghanistan other than revenge for 9/11.

Well, they certainly had to attack somebody, eh? Couldn't very well just sit there and tell their people, "...well look, folks: We can't find the perpetrators, we're pretty much sitting ducks here because the terrorists probably lived within our own borders for donkey's years, so we'll just have to tighten up on security a tad and hope this doesn't happen again..."
How do you think that kind of story would've gone down with the patriotic American public?

[Fenella]

Well, they certainly had to attack somebody, eh? Couldn't very well just sit there and tell their people, "...well look, folks: We can't find the perpetrators, we're pretty much sitting ducks here because the terrorists probably lived within our own borders for donkey's years, so we'll just have to tighten up on security a tad and hope this doesn't happen again..."
How do you think that kind of story would've gone down with the patriotic American public?

That's right and they had to pick a country they thought wouldn't or couldn't fight back. Unfortunately these days wars are never won or lost because nobody is fighting on equal terms. The Taliban must have seemed like an easy target, but they fought back and are still doing so. The US learned nothing from the history of Afghanistan.

They would never had invaded Iraq if they thought for one second the Iraqi army was capable of fighting back either. I don't think they will go for Iran because that would be one step too far.

[AzH]

Northern Korea's got a bloody strong military.

No they don't.

[Earl]

They're all under five feet tall!

[Scolls]

No they don't.

"North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an "impoverished" nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse. An impoverished, starving nation cannot face down a military superpower. Today few nations have military assets strong enough to challenge the US military. Russia, though weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, has enough assets to face up to the US. China, somewhat weaker than Russia, too, has strong military that can challenge the US. However, both Russia and China lack the political will to face down the US.

In contrast, North Korea has not only the military power but also the political will to wage total war against the United States. North Korea has made it clear that it will strike all US targets with all means, if the US mounted military attacks on North Korea. That North Korea's threat is no bluff..." ~ source

"Available Military Manpower: 5,851,801
Total Military Personnel: 5,995,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 1,106,000 ...

Aircraft: 1,624
Armor: 6,560
Artillery Systems: 21,400
Missile Defense Systems: 16,075
Infantry Support Systems: 9,200
Naval Units: 708
Merchant Marine Strength: 284" ~ source

Really? That amount of military personnel kinda reminds me of the figures for the number of soldiers in the biggest infantry to ever have existed in the history of the world ~ the Red Army at the end of WWII (I think they were around a strength of 6 million active frontline troops!)

[SFB]

The UK and US send troops and crap equipment into Afghanistan to fight a force of badly equipped tribesmen who completely screwed the Russian army?

Will anyone ever learn by someone elses mistake?





























Not on your Nelly!