SeVeR

Yea.... but everyone still hates the French. Every country bordering France (Spain, Italy, Germany) has a long standing hatred for the French. The Americans hate the French and are a whole ocean away. Even the French hate the French! The only people who like the French live in Quebec. *French bashing over* So the European Union was a great idea and still is because otherwise we'd have all invaded France by now.

I just wear a sign (my avatar) then i don't get people acting like they just found out my deep-dark anti-christian secret. However, now i have people thinking i burn crosses, so maybe i should find a politically witty anti-christian avatar that reeks of sophistication on a level no mad petrol-can wielding satanist could possibly aspire to. So that's my thoughts, i doubt they've been helpful.

Tetris?

I doubt they'd suddenly become a perfect copy of a 1950's democracy. They'll still feel hatred and will seek to discriminate against the other tribes. The dawn of democracy in Iraq only seemed to enhance the pre-existing hatred as a result of the acts of terrorists to thwart America's plans.. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and kept them in check while they still held their prejudices against other tribes but wouldn't act on them. A democracy isn't going to suddenly erase that hatred and cause society to accept everyone as equal and i feel the pre-existing hatred has now been escalated. I am still optimistic though; If the terrorists eventually get into their thick heads that America will pull out once the Iraqi army can control everything they should stop bombing places... at least until the Americans leave.

No, it talks about the confirmed CIA intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was on a hunting trip with UAE officials in 1999 (members of the royal family). They did not order a strike because they didn't want to kill the UAE officials. When they notified the officials to get out of the area those UAE officials then notified Bin Laden that the Americans knew his location and he fled. That's the UAE for you. Please don't lie to support your view. You completely didn't understand what i said. Iraq will be split (as it is) into its three separate tribes who will get support from the other countries in the Middle East destabilising the region. No-one will directly go to war with Iraq while the Americans are there. Iran will support its tribe and the other countries will support theirs. Iran is already interfering and wants "talks" with America on the subject of Iraq. With Saddam it was a resolution, he kept all the tribes in check with an iron fist. A democracy may be too weak and too slow to get near what Saddam had done and currently it looks like they can't control squat even with the Americans help. Exactly, we go by what we hear in the news. WMDs were all over the news as the reason for going in, maybe they used that as an excuse then to say that Iraq was making the region unstable? That didn't really answer my question. As far as i can tell they were weaker than Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at the time they were attacked. Also they wouldn't have attacked Kuwait again thats for sure.

Its in the 9/11 official report! Just take a look at the news and see the instability. Each of those now warring tribes has supporters all over the region, as far as i can remember Iran is Shia and much of the rest of the Middle East is in support of the Sunnis. We could potentially have a Middle East war if things continue to get out of hand. Saddam controlled his country well because everyone feared him. How was the region less stable with Saddam in charge?....seeing as how before and after his rule the country was/is completely torn apart by conflict. Isn't that a different topic? What are you bringing that up here for? I admit that it was a bit outlandish of me to talk about Bush and Opium but all i was trying to do was provoke a debate by stating the facts that led me to my suspicions to see if anyone else could postulate a better theory. All i was met with was the implication that i was !@#$%^&*uming it to be true, i guess i didn't present what i was trying to say in a very obvious manner. Ok (giving you the benefit of the doubt) what have you researched and read that told you Saddam was a threat to neighbouring nations and did any of these neighbouring nations act on this threat?

My mistake (how could they recognize them now anyway), they were only one of three countries that initially recognized the Taliban, the other two were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. To Afghanistan? To the Taliban? To the government that gave Osama Bin Laden refuge? I'm not following how they didn't give money to the terrorists... Oh it does, their banking system was being used to fund the terrorists in the US, their system held the accounts that paid for the flying lessons and the living costs of the hijackers. The government may not be directly to blame but from the next sources you have to question whether they knew alot more than they were letting on after 9/11. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522484/ You won't find this one in the controlled media but you will in the 9/11 report: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/103153/034 http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.ph...rticle&sid=3196 Toppling Saddam HAS destabilised the region! And what ties did he have to terrorist organisations? You're saying he had more ties than the the UAE royal family or Saudi Arabia? Monte said it already, the WMDs were the main reason. As for being a threat you're joking right? You're telling me the media really got you believing Saddam was a threat?

I don't believe unequivocally that Bush went to Afghanistan to revitalise the drugs business. I was throwing it out there as an opinion and making sure everyone knew about the 95% eradication of opium crops by the Taliban shortly before 9/11. I have also formed the opinion (separately) that Bush is a very well-connected business man and in the case of the ports deal is seemingly putting business above security although there are varying opinions on how much of a threat there would be. I then also have the fact that some of Bush's friends have profited quite nicely from the war on terror. Then there's the fact the opium production has gone up greatly with no intervention by the US forces a full 5 years after the invasion begun. Things just added up to form my opinion and i wanted others to know about the facts that formed the opinion. I certainly don't think its likely that Bush is linked to the drugs business, i just think that the probability he is has to be enough for consideration.

My opinion is based on facts but i don't have any proof that bush has links to the drugs business. That's why my opinion is... an opinion, and not a fact. That would be a very good method of ascertaining C as a fact. However all i need is A to form an opinion about C. Hey, you started calling me "!@#$%^&*ing stupid" so i'm going to see this through to the end and point out every dumb!@#$%^&* comment you make. Notice after i said that i put in brackets "if it exists" referring to the possible existence of proof, scroll up and you'll see it. Here it is: With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone getting proof i don't estimate getting it anytime soon (if it exists). Is this justification? If Bush has gone to Afghanistan for the drugs business then he would of course try and cover it up, i'm just stating the obvious. I'm not using this as a excuse to back up my opinion, i'm not saying that my opinion is true because of this, its not justification. I put the "if it exists" in for good reason and i'm glad now because it proves i'm not using it as justification because i'm not saying it is certain to have happened in the first place. No, because i haven't said its a fact. Nowhere in your statement did i see the a hint of uncertainty. I guess you missed all the facts i used to form my opinion of Bush's motives. I put them all in one nice little paragraph... actually you quoted that paragraph Well you seem to be veering in the opposite direction with this post. Have a good one and try not to throw !@#$%^&* at the fan, it doesn't help.

Did i say that? No. My opinion is based on facts. The things i cited in the previous post are facts that form my opinion of Bush's motives for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not saying my opinion is a fact! I'm not justifying anything by saying Bush is keeping the facts from me. I'm saying that i'm not likely to get proof of my opinion any time soon. Where did "justification" come from? If you want to learn a little about making gross-generalisations on this forum then read your own ridiculous post back to yourself.

Exactly they would have a field day and thats because they maintain that the best option is not to invade in the first place. The fact that Bush isn't doing a complete job and is selecting weak nations is just further indication of him being the point-man for 9/11 vengeance. The UAE still recognises the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan, did you know that? The UAE helped fund the terrorists and wasn't invaded at the time (before their subsequent efforts) The UAE does not recognise Israel (neither do I, but this seems to tick off America) The UAE has shipped nuclear weapons parts to Pakistan and IRAN in defiance of US requests. What about Iraq? oh.... we don't like them and made up a load of bullcrap about WMDs based on incomplete intelligence from people who wanted to topple Saddam.

Please, just look at how the demise of Christian influence over power coincided with an incredible rate of development in the West and you'll see it clear as day. In America I understand that it isn't as clearly evident because your country hasn't lived through 1700 years of religious rule followed by 300 years of exponential development coinciding with the demise of that rule. Why do we need religion? I don't need religion and neither do alot of people in the West. I have reaffirmed morals based on my knowledge of survivalism and live perfectly fine on the more socially acceptable side of moral relativity because of it. BTW Cavemen invented religion! And you think Islam will allow this? Religion as we well know is anti-change. Science is pro-change. The Bible is the ever-unchanging source of law and knowledge for all Christians and that never changes, as is the Koran for Muslims. If religion had been completely successful from the start we'd still be living in caves huddling together in the cold. Computers, Phones, Cars all would not have existed if we'd answered our questions with the all-answering "God did it". If everyone was a Christian today we'd never develop beyond this point because we'd answer everything with the words "God did it" or "God gave us the answers so we don't need to look for them". Its easy to prove yourself to the USA and it doesn't involve becoming a democracy, accepting Israel, or not funding terrorists. Its having the right business links. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will never be invaded by the Bush Administration and certainly the last two never were in danger after 9/11 when they played the biggest parts.

Yep thats the story, what they don't say is what he is charged for (not terrorism). Well i would say that based on 9/11 Saudi Arabia was the biggest culprit as most of the AQ terrorists came from there. Pakistan for one has many terrorist camps and we only hear about those because Musharraf is kissing Bush's butt and announcing his plans to destroy these places. Not to mention the UAE funded the terrorists. I would like to know just how much of hotbed Afghanistan was compared to the more difficult targets in the Middle East. Possibly, i don't have anything to link Bush to the drugs-business. I only know of Bush's dealings to understand he is a business man above all-else, i only know about the rebuilding of the drugs-outflow from Afghanistan since the invasion, and i only know about the companies affiliated with members of the Bush Adminstration who make packet-loads of money off the war. I only know a bit about how a democracy in Iraq will help America's oil interests in that country for years to come. The pieces come together to form my opinion, but you're certainly right that i don't have any proof. With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone getting proof i don't estimate getting it anytime soon (if it exists).

So the attacks on London, Bali, Egypt, Madrid and recently at an American Univeristy would still have happened if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? The influx of recruits for Al-Qaeda (so many that they've had to close their doors to some) would still have happened if Bush hadn't invaded? I'd say Bush has escalated the problem.

Well i can't help but think that Bush isn't doing a complete job anyway. He's picked Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the weakest countries in the Middle East while leaving out Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. If he wanted to change some ideoligies and speed up development then picking on weak countries that just happen to be the biggest suppliers of oil (after S.A) and opium in the world just gives me other ideas about his motives. He must have known that his invasions would only serve to produce more terrorists and West-haters and if he doesn't complete the job by invading the whole of the Middle East then we'll still end up with more Saudis, Syrians, Moroccans, Iranians, Libyans, Pakistanis and Muslims the world over wanting to dish-out death to the west. He has to invade at least 3 more countries and somehow convert them to peace-loving democracies just to possibly turn the tables on the number of west-haters there are in the world. Thats even an optimistic prediction. I don't think you can speed up the development of the Islamic world while religion still has a hold over the governments and dictatorships in place in those countries. We are only so advanced because religion has taken a back seat and allowed freedom of expression and scientific exploration to flourish. 800 years ago we weren't any more advanced than they were. So rather than concluding that their society has developed slower we should be asking why their society has not had the accelerated development during the last 400 years that ours has. It is our interference in the Middle East that causes these people to hate us. The more we interfere the more they hate. Short of wiping out huge numbers of people and invading every country in the hopes of forming peaceful democracies we aren't ever going to end up with something better than pre-9/11 that wouldn't have come with uninterfered development.

Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle East. That's all i was referring to; either definition is valid. Invading "parts" of the Middle East is still invading the Middle East. Necessary by what motives? Lust for vengeance or a genuine threat? They never found Osama Bin Laden, was he actually in Afghanistan at all? (i might have missed where we got the proof of this in the news but other than him being there "at some point" he could have spent the majority of his time anywhere.) Is that a question or a statement? An Iranian Muslim in America drove an SUV into a crowd of students at a popular campus gathering point at some university in America i can't remember the name of. He has told the police that he used the SUV to inflict maximum damage, he had been planning the attack for months, and had carried out the attack in revenge for Western policies and the Muslims who have perished. The incredible thing is this wasn't called a terrorist attack (to hush up the media who will catch on to the keyword: terrorist) when this is no different to 9/11, except he used a car instead of a plane here. Exactly. But my questions are was this purely vengeance? Is that the right way to go about invading an entire country? Was Afghanistan chosen because they were an easy target? Was the wiping out of opium exports by the Taliban a secondary reason for Bush to invade?

Islamic society hasn't always been as hate-filled as it is now. Their hatred of the West has only materialised in the last or so with Israel and the big business for oil. Islam has traditionally been a much more peaceful religion than Christianity. I don't see how you could assume i want rapists and murderers to roam free. I for one don't deny that they will inevitably exist on a grander scale in a society far less advanced than our own. The problem with interfering is we create more people willing to murder us because of our interference. Try to read my post without pre-conceived ideas of Bush-hatred. I don't think he caused the violence in the Middle East, i said he escalated it. You don't need a lot of proof to realise that either.

*An alien invasion fleet is approaching the Earth* *NASA and the ESA develop a plan to infect the alien mothership's computer using an alien scout ship that crash-landed in the 50's* *Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum are recruited to pilot the ship into the alien mothership and trasmit the virus* *Being actors... Will Smith flies the ship into one of the motherships ion cannons just as the aliens are using it to blow up the White House* *Thankfully they both died quick deaths* *The White House is in ruins and the background music plays a sombre classical piece whilst the camera pans over burnt out cars and gutted buildings* *GW Bush died in the White House so the emergency government hires none other than the last hope for all man-kind to take control over the countries affairs* *Chuck Norris immediately begins to bellow out orders using the resonance frequency of his flexing bicep to amplify his voice across the country* *In no time at all the whole population is scurrying around for little pieces of metal and fashioning them into ninja stars, combat knifes and nunchakus* *With a whole army of civilians behind him Chuck climbs the biggest skyscraper in the whole of New York* *It takes Chuck about 10 minutes to climb the building so the army bides time by putting on their ninja outfits and learning to fly* *Once at the top of the building Chuck flying-round-house-kicks the mothership into the Moon blowing it and the Moon to smithereens* *Chuck realises that he's just stopped all the tides on the Earth from happening wreaking havoc for the fishing industry* *WIth one flex of his bicep he orders the entire population for throw their ninja-stars into space to create a new Moon made out of ninja stars* *The world is safe again from aliens AND GW Bush... well done Chuck. *SeVeR criticises Chucks handling of the situation and decides that he will protest against the lack of peace talks between Chuck and the aliens* *Chuck orders his nation of ninjas to take me hostage while he sets up a weight machine in front of me* *I am powerless as Chuck begins pumping iron at a rate so fast that my head explodes*

I have the interests of the whole of the Western World at heart including America. I wish we could form a western government and gradually include other countries as their views become much the same as the West. Lets face it Britain and America would very easily become the same country although currently there are too many Nationalists for this to happen. I don't understand the need for a National Iden!@#$%^&*y as it only serves to fulfill our psychological desire for some personal iden!@#$%^&*y in the most basic way possible. It is so primitive to be proud of living in your country because there are so many better ways to establish personal iden!@#$%^&*y which do not discriminate between birth-place. Nationalism (and on a milder form Patriotism) only serves to distance us from other peoples and puts a value on the heads of every person in the world who should ultimately be of equal value to ourselves when only birth-place is used as identification. I find it quite amazing how pro-american and feck-the-rest-of-the-world a large amount of Americans are... i can't help but correlate this to the extroadinary amount of American flags i see here as a sign of patriotism. Ramble Over.

I doubt Bushes motives for eliminating terrorism because any muppet can realise that invading the Middle East will create thousands more terrorists than already existed. This is the case currently. I'm actually amazed that there haven't been further attacks in America like the ones in London, Madrid and Bali. (One could count the highly hushed up attack of the Iranian who drove a car into several people at an American university in revenge for dead Muslims as a terrorist attack, but the liberal media served Bush well in this instance). Afghanistan was a terrorist training ground but so is/was Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine and most of the Middle East. Afghanistan was just the easy target for revenge and an attractive target for rebuilding the biggest opium supplier in the world (the biggest by a long way, about 90%). The price of opium must have rocketed after the succesful ban by the Taliban. I think those were the two reasons to invade based on the friends of GW Bush in the Middle East, and back home.

Then why was Afghanistan invaded? Most governments in the Middle East support and fund Al-Qaeda, almost none of the terrorists came from Afghanistan, and the Taliban weren't a particulary ruthless dictatorship compared to others in the Middle East. Were they just the easiest target for Bush to take revenge on? I'm not saying Opium was the only reason, i'm saying that when you want to kill two birds with one stone... then opium is big fat bird that should be squarking madly to alot more of you.

I guess you want it spelt out to you by the UN surveys so here ya go (with the sources at the end) 1998 Production: 2,100 metric tons 1999 Production: 4,600 metric tons 2000 Production: 3,275 metric tons At the end of July 2000, just after the harvest but before the survey results were known, the Head of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, issued a new decree concerning the crop to be planted for the 2001 harvest. It stated, "Opium poppy cultivation in the whole country is strictly prohibited." 2001 Production: 185 metric tons That's right 185 metric tons, a 95% eradication by the Taliban. The USA invades. 2002 Production: 1,278 metric tons 2003 Production: 2,865 metric tons 2004 Production: 4,200 metric tons 2005 Production: 4,100 metric tons What happened to that 30% predicted drop? It ended up nearly the same as the crop in 2004. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_1999-09-10_1.html (1998-1999) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/newsletter_2000..._1_page006.html (2000 + ban) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_2003-10-29_1.html (2001) http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/waronterror/a/afghanpoppy.htm (2002-2003) http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrel...unisnar916.html (2005) The move comes two days after the Afghan government and the United Nations warned that they expect cultivation of opium poppies to increase across large swathes of the country this year. Afghanistan is the source of nearly 90 percent of the world’s opium and heroin From my link regarding 2006. So an increase is predicted here by both the Afghan government and the UN. Based on 2004 and 2005 statistics 2006 looks to be another record year, hence why i said it. Don't let the government pull the wool over your eyes. Just over a year after the ban was put in place and the USA realised they were serious about it they invaded, guns ablaze to knock the Taliban of their anti-drug thrones. From what i've researched above i can now reaffirm by comments that this is complete bullsh!t. First of all, the US is buying the drugs not selling them.... i mean Afghanistan is the country growing it so they're gonna be selling it. The USA wants to keep the cost of opium low so that the big-wigs at the top of the drugs business in the USA can buy the opium at the lowest prices and keep making huge profits. First of all the invasion was 5 years ago and opium production is higher than ever. Signs of a decrease trumped by the government agencies to be fed to the press have not materialised to have any signs of truth behind them. Secondly its not the government making the money, its friends of the government.

Read it again, you'll see that 2004 was the heighest ever crop (this is from the first links i posted). The link i just posted informs us about how 2006 looks set to break the record again. Just how did the US invasion contain opium production when 2004 was a record year? The link i just posted shows that 2006 looks to be another record year. You're not going to see that anywhere. I seriously doubt Bush would ever give us his true motives for invading the Middle East. It comes down to profit margins and the reflected wealth of Afghanistan's economy to the international press.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...9-3-2006_pg4_15 The move comes two days after the Afghan government and the United Nations warned that they expect cultivation of opium poppies to increase across large swathes of the country this year. Afghanistan is the source of nearly 90 percent of the world’s opium and heroin even though the international community has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the trade since the hard-line Taliban regime was ousted by a US-led invasion in 2001. Any predicted decrease was wrong. Even if 2005 did end up less than 2004 the record crop in 2004 is indication enough that the US invasion resulted in opium production soaring to its greatest height ever when before the invasion the Taliban were wiping it out and had set the death penalty as punishment for growing the crop.

Al Quaeda is !@#$%^&*ociated with most of the governments in the middle east. That's because it was written in 2005 and 2005 hadn't even finished. They offered a prediction about 2006 but they can't give any figures because that was in the future and still is because 2006 isn't over now either. They make money from it because it'd be a !@#$%^&* of a lot more expensive to buy it from other countries. The opium trade is BIG business and Afghanistan supplies 90% of it, with Afghanistan wiping out crops the drugs business would take a major hit, now that the US succesfully invaded the drugs are flowing once again and 2006 looks to be a boom year with one of the biggest crops ever.