| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 22:36:23
http://www.timeleft.us/
-------------------------------------
Want to live forever?
http://www.alexchiu.com/ |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 18:58:59
quote:
Depression is one thing, but the denial prevalent here this morning, coupled with the rather infantile abuse of "the other", really is just too amusing.
"The other" WHAT?
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 11:40:15
ha ha ha you guys are so FUNNY!!!
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Dallas |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 11:01:19
I thought I was feeling a bit smarter this morning. Thanks for the headsup, I was attributing it to something else entirely. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 10:58:37
Dallas, my ass has been kicked! But now I feel much better informed, which is, they tell me, a good thing. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 10:47:32
Thanks, Tre. I knew you'd kick ass on my behalf. xoxo
If Bush had been voted out of office yesterday, I wouldn't be
rubbing it in his supporters' faces today or gloating about it.
This is deeply upsetting to many people and it's best to be respectful of others, even those with whom we disagree politically.
 I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| dayanara |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 10:42:34
Well said, Tre!
Around here, intolerance will not be tolerated |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 10:38:16
I'll try not to take any offence erebus dear, especially as I petitioned for you in the ban erebus and harringk thread...
However, laugh all you like, but I would be less amused that the over-enthusiastic religious zealots had such a huge say in the way my country was going to be run, hurrah for the love of guns and god. Yeah, thats way funnier than informed people making decisions on matters that were you know, relevent rather than irrelevent wars and matters of belief.
I'm kind of glad religion doesn't come into politics here
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Dallas |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 10:23:09
Here is a quote I like from right-wing-fascist-nazi-oppressor-warmonger-warpig Jonah Goldberg:
"The cult of the youth voter remains once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics."
-Jonah Goldberg, The Corner, National Review Online
ROCK the VOTE!!! Vote or DIE!! Woooohoooo!! Thanks for all your hard work P-Diddy! Bruce! Eminem! Bon Jovi! Thanks for making a DIFFERENCE in our society!!
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 09:43:18
Tre, not meaning you personally: Depression is one thing, but the denial prevalent here this morning, coupled with the rather infantile abuse of "the other", really is just too amusing. Later it may be infuriating, or maybe just sad, but at least for today I'm laughing like a 'shroomhead. |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 09:36:59
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Bush's justification for the war as I understand (and support) is this:
-- Saddam supports and harbors terrorists. (never got any serious evidence about that. name 1 terrorist attack involving iraq)
-- Saddam shares a hatred for the USA with some very extreme terrorists who have recently proved their dedication and desire to kill many Americans.(mere sympathy or hatred is not a valid reason to invade a 60 million people country)
--Saddam has used WMD in the past and most likely has some right now (this is according to intelligence reports from MULTIPLE COUNTRIES, not just the USA).(never found any WMD after 10 years of UN inspections. they were positive that 10 years of embargo and inspections had the desired effect at 99%. UN inspectors clearly stated that before and during the war. proof of this fact is that no WMD are still found.)
--If Saddam chose to sell or give these WMD to these terrorists the consequences would be horrific.(IF? what if china decides to do so? or pakistan or india? will you invade everyone? can you?)
--Saddam has failed to adequately prove the distruction/disposal of WMD we knew he had (as required by the UN), thus he most likely still has them somewhere.(same as above. where does he hide all this stuff? the US army is so ridiculous as being incapable of finding military installations in an occupied country?)
----->Thus Saddam must be removed, to reduce the threat of WMD landing in the hands of terrorists willing and able to use them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.(thus invade israel, pakistan, india, south corea etc. they all have WMD (sponsored by the US at times))
Liberating millions of Iraqis who had been raped, tortured, and murdered by Saddam for decades was an added benefit.(liberating intended as raping and torturing by US soldiers instead of saddam? liberating as causing a civil war and post war anarchy were innocent people have less than they had before? that's nice)
One that was obviously played up after the lack of discovery of the WMD that EVERYBODY thought we would find (and still may).(everybody? absolutely NOT true. UN inspectors had alraedy declared that the iraqi WMD capacity was completely irrelevant or inexistent. that's why france, germany, china and russia refused the WMD excuse for a war)
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| n/a |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 09:01:04
I'd have a go at a fight with words but I'd get bored of breaking down everything into monosyllabic terms, that is very short words to you
Besides, what makes you think you'd get near enough to get a hit in hmm ( )
Seriously, I know you're feeling very smug and pleased with yourself right now, but there's a fairly large chunk of people who are horribly depressed with this news, especially outside of the USA, the faces of people around the university here in Sheffield are grim because from a whole world point of view, this isn't good news.
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| harringk |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 08:55:33
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
You want to take this outside young man?
Frank Black ate my hamster
Sorry, I'm not a violent person, and I usually refrain from hitting girls. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 08:51:03
You want to take this outside young man?
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| harringk |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 08:47:16
I promised that I would remind everyone of this topic after Bush won, so here you go.
Best Nelson imitation: HAA haa
Let the countdown begin, 4 years 2 months and counting... |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 17:43:23
Easy. Harringk's side of the argument is that everyone else is wrong, and he's right.
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| slaveish |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 20:02:14
harringk: What kind of "wake up call" are you talking about? You are using jargon to justifiy your opinions, but not explaining why you believe what you do. Meanwhile, you keep accusing others on this thread of "using bias" and having "lame" arguments. Be specific, and we might understand your side of the argument. |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 17:54:13
Yah. |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:53:53
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
I've never heard the argument to support that thought, just the thought paraded as fact.
Then do some research and make up your own mind. You're not going to believe anything I tell you anyway. |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:44:45
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
Is it democracy they hate, or the United States in particular?
Both. I'm sure some of them just want the opportunity to kill American soldiers. But they are also targeting Iraqi civilians.
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
And how do you know that some of these terrorists aren't Iraqi? To say that "the Iraqi people" love us, but "foreigners" are stirring up trouble just strikes me as too simplistic.
I'm sure some of them are Iraqi, probably a lot of them are the Iraqi soldiers that just laid down their weapons and left the battlefield. Most of them are probably sympathetic to Saddam and have no problem targeting civilians just like they did when Saddam was in power.
There are certainly Iraqis who hate us, and Iraqis who love us. A lot of it depends on who you talk to and where their allegience was before the invasion.
|
| hammerhands |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:27:59
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
quote:
If countries choose to give support to these types of organizations then they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
What was the Iraq - Al Qaeda connection?
I didn't say there was an Iraq - Al Qaeda connection. However, nobody will deny that there is an Iraq - Terrorist connection. Al Qaeda is not the only threat.
What connection was that?
This is what you choose to argue about, that Saddam didn't support terrorists? Come on, there are plenty of valid arguments against my position, but this is not one of them.
I've never heard the argument to support that thought, just the thought paraded as fact.
quote:
Is it democracy they hate, or the United States in particular?
I think what is said is that the Koran is law, democracy is hubris. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:19:37
quote:
Right now Iraq is full of foreign Islamic terrorists that despise the idea of democracy.
Is it democracy they hate, or the United States in particular? And how do you know that some of these terrorists aren't Iraqi? To say that "the Iraqi people" love us, but "foreigners" are stirring up trouble just strikes me as too simplistic.
quote:
Wake up. Quit letting your bias cause you to ignore the facts.
Now THAT'S the pot calling the kettle black (and not Frank, unfortunately).
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:19:04
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
quote:
If countries choose to give support to these types of organizations then they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
What was the Iraq - Al Qaeda connection?
I didn't say there was an Iraq - Al Qaeda connection. However, nobody will deny that there is an Iraq - Terrorist connection. Al Qaeda is not the only threat.
What connection was that?
This is what you choose to argue about, that Saddam didn't support terrorists? Come on, there are plenty of valid arguments against my position, but this is not one of them. |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 12:14:00
quote:
Originally posted by slaveish
What kind of shape is Iraq in how? Is it better off now than it was under Saddam?
Right now Iraq is full of foreign Islamic terrorists that despise the idea of democracy. They are the ones targeting civilians, not the US. Once the Iraqi people come together and help the US rid their country of this filth they will be much better off than they were under Saddam.
quote:
Originally posted by slaveish
Your'e making the connections yourself. "We most likely would not have invaded Iraq if not for 9/11." How is that not the same as linking the two? I don't get it.
You don't get it huh? Gee that's surprising. I already explained my position earlier. 9/11 was a wake up call.
quote:
Originally posted by slaveish
Also, if you think that harboring terrorists (I'm not sure that Saddam has, by the way)
Wake up. Quit letting your bias cause you to ignore the facts. |
| twist |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 23:35:14
quote:
quote:
[/i]
I see that you support a pre-emptive war by the U.S. on countries that have not directly attacked us.
Under some circumstances yes.
we weren't attacked by a country, we were attacked by an organization. If countries choose to give support to these types of organizations then they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
"under some circumstances yes"? What country and/or era are you living in?
What the heck are we doing creating a terrorist hotbed where there was none instead of giving a few "consequences" in Afganistan?
Most of the highjackers were Saudi, will Saudi Arabia be "dealt with"?
Religious Fundamentalism plus Nationalism is as dangerous in America as it is in the mid east. I remember after Nixon resigned being Republican was a shameful thing and America was a Liberal country. Those days are coming back. Hype only lasts so long. Bushs' true constituants are the $30,000,000.00 and over crowd. In the privacy of the voting booth America will reject fear and hate. We're all really sick of it. |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 22:20:26
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
quote:
If countries choose to give support to these types of organizations then they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
What was the Iraq - Al Qaeda connection?
I didn't say there was an Iraq - Al Qaeda connection. However, nobody will deny that there is an Iraq - Terrorist connection. Al Qaeda is not the only threat.
What connection was that? |
| slaveish |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 19:24:01
What kind of shape is Iraq in how? Is it better off now than it was under Saddam? Iraq has become a hotbed of terrorist activity. That was not going on before we invaded. Thousands and thousands of Iraquis and Americans have been injured and killed. The U.S. uses depleted uranium in its weapons, which is causing huge health problems, causing cancer in and killing children. How can you justify this war? Bush is without a doubt the worst president in American history. Invading Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his failed policies.
Your'e making the connections yourself. "We most likely would not have invaded Iraq if not for 9/11." How is that not the same as linking the two? I don't get it.
Also, if you think that harboring terrorists (I'm not sure that Saddam has, by the way) is justification for invading a country, shouldn't we be invading Saudi Arabia? Invading Iraq is clearly a case of bate and switch. They had nothing to do with 9/11. What about Israel? Should we invade Israel? Like I said, the 9/11 terrorists were trained here. Should we invade ourselves? Actually, that might not be a bad idea. |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/16/2004 : 10:40:16
quote:
Originally posted by slaveish
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
I have never heard Bush use a Saddam-9/11 connection as a justification for the war. I'm not sure where this comes from. I guess there's probably some quotes out there that have been interpreted that way, and that is where it comes from, but I've never believed that was the case.
Bush's justification for the war as I understand (and support) is this:
-- Saddam supports and harbors terrorists.
-- Saddam shares a hatred for the USA with some very extreme terrorists who have recently proved their dedication and desire to kill many Americans.
--Saddam has used WMD in the past and most likely has some right now (this is according to intelligence reports from MULTIPLE COUNTRIES, not just the USA).
--If Saddam chose to sell or give these WMD to these terrorists the consequences would be horrific.
--Saddam has failed to adequately prove the distruction/disposal of WMD we knew he had (as required by the UN), thus he most likely still has them somewhere.
----->Thus Saddam must be removed, to reduce the threat of WMD landing in the hands of terrorists willing and able to use them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Liberating millions of Iraqis who had been raped, tortured, and murdered by Saddam for decades was an added benefit. One that was obviously played up after the lack of discovery of the WMD that EVERYBODY thought we would find (and still may).
You've never heard Bush use 911 as a justification for invading Iraq. Wow. He does it constantly. Did you watch his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention? It's a matter of connecting the dots. He deliberately and regularly links these ideas and has planted it in the minds of the American public. The 911 commission found no credible links between the two, and people continue to believe that one exists. It is the architecture of his presidency. It is his raison d'etre. He speaks of it daily, and thus makes it true in many peoples' minds.
As to his alleged justificaiton for war which you support:
--The terrorists which crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11 were mostly Saudis, not Iraquis, and trained to fly commercial aircraft in the U.S. So one could say that the U.S. supports and harbors terrorists.
--Why do you think that Saddam shares a hatred for the U.S. with "some very extreme terrorists?" (by the way, he shares a hatred that goes far beyond the Arab world. Your logic is faulty. Would you link Saddam with Fidel Castro?) Do you think his hatred has anything to do with our repeatedly aggressive foreign policy? Or does he just hate, as President Chimpy likes to put it, "freedom-loving people?" If you're a fundamentalist Christian like our president, and view the world in black and white, it is easy to come to ridiculous conclusions like this.
--Which country is the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons? The U.S. So which country, based on its record, would be more likely to use WMD?
--In case you haven't been paying attention, U.N. weapons inspectors found no WMD in Iraq.
---->No justification for war.
Wow, those are some of the lamest arguments I've heard to date. Which I'm sure is exactly what I sound like to you...whatever...
By the way, just because you "connect the dots" and think you know what Bush "really" means doesn't make it so. I've heard the exact same speeches you have and didn't come to the same conclusion. You hear what you want to hear to support your lame arguments. Sure Bush refers to 9/11 in the context of the Iraq war, because we most likely would not have invaded Iraq if not for 9/11. That doesn't imply a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Unfortunately it took 9/11 to open our eyes and realize that we had been at war for the past 10 years but hadn't been fighting back.
Oh well, like I said, I'm not trying to change any minds. Just wanted to make sure that the record is complete.
Bush will win in November. It will not be close. |
| darwin |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 23:04:01
Cheney links Saddam and 9/11 all the time and then occassionally Colin Powell points out that there is no proof of a connection. |
| slaveish |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 22:41:05
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
I have never heard Bush use a Saddam-9/11 connection as a justification for the war. I'm not sure where this comes from. I guess there's probably some quotes out there that have been interpreted that way, and that is where it comes from, but I've never believed that was the case.
Bush's justification for the war as I understand (and support) is this:
-- Saddam supports and harbors terrorists.
-- Saddam shares a hatred for the USA with some very extreme terrorists who have recently proved their dedication and desire to kill many Americans.
--Saddam has used WMD in the past and most likely has some right now (this is according to intelligence reports from MULTIPLE COUNTRIES, not just the USA).
--If Saddam chose to sell or give these WMD to these terrorists the consequences would be horrific.
--Saddam has failed to adequately prove the distruction/disposal of WMD we knew he had (as required by the UN), thus he most likely still has them somewhere.
----->Thus Saddam must be removed, to reduce the threat of WMD landing in the hands of terrorists willing and able to use them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Liberating millions of Iraqis who had been raped, tortured, and murdered by Saddam for decades was an added benefit. One that was obviously played up after the lack of discovery of the WMD that EVERYBODY thought we would find (and still may).
You've never heard Bush use 911 as a justification for invading Iraq. Wow. He does it constantly. Did you watch his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention? It's a matter of connecting the dots. He deliberately and regularly links these ideas and has planted it in the minds of the American public. The 911 commission found no credible links between the two, and people continue to believe that one exists. It is the architecture of his presidency. It is his raison d'etre. He speaks of it daily, and thus makes it true in many peoples' minds.
As to his alleged justificaiton for war which you support:
--The terrorists which crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11 were mostly Saudis, not Iraquis, and trained to fly commercial aircraft in the U.S. So one could say that the U.S. supports and harbors terrorists.
--Why do you think that Saddam shares a hatred for the U.S. with "some very extreme terrorists?" (by the way, he shares a hatred that goes far beyond the Arab world. Your logic is faulty. Would you link Saddam with Fidel Castro?) Do you think his hatred has anything to do with our repeatedly aggressive foreign policy? Or does he just hate, as President Chimpy likes to put it, "freedom-loving people?" If you're a fundamentalist Christian like our president, and view the world in black and white, it is easy to come to ridiculous conclusions like this.
--Which country is the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons? The U.S. So which country, based on its record, would be more likely to use WMD?
--In case you haven't been paying attention, U.N. weapons inspectors found no WMD in Iraq.
---->No justification for war.
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 20:06:59
quote:
Not just the election, but, people like you who shrink from the reality of the world will be viewed as nothing more than a bunch of Chamberlains.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that a high position?
quote:
Its interesting that nobody cared about the hundreds of thousands of civilians that Saddam killed and tortured over the years, but now all of a sudden its the US that is evil.
Because if we don't support Bush, we're saying Saddam was a nice guy? That strikes me as a rather dualistic argument. Sort of like that "You're either with us or with the terrorists!" nonsense. Can't we be against both of them? For that matter, it's within the realm of possibility that someone could SUPPORT both Bush and Hussein, but I'd rather not meet this person.
While I don't think the United States is literally trying to take over the world, I have to say that the idea that the US government thinks they can intervene anywhere because they're a superpower, and are always in the right, makes me pretty nervous. Who's to say the US is always right? It kind of seems to be buying into the whole "might makes right" thing.
quote:
Hillary is scary for Republicans.
OH, NO! IT'S HILLARY CLINTON! RUN AWAY! SHE'LL EAT OUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, I have to go. The dolts have gotten into the echo chamber again. I think I'll need the broom.
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead. Hang me! |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 16:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I don't think you'll find many people opposed to Afghanistan, pacifists excluded. The world was behind the US in that, I'd say. But, you have to wonder, what happened that all of that support and goodwill disappeared to quickly as a result of Iraq?
Part of it is that I don't think I've ever heard Bush justify the war on the grounds of harbouring terrorists. I've heard him connect Iraq to 9/11 or rather try, I've heard talk of liberating the Iraqis, but perhaps I missed it... did he ever claim to be going after terrorists in the country?
I suppose I now understand where you're coming from: Saddam is a terrorist, he had to be gotten rid of whether he had done anything in the past decade or not to pose an international threat, the point is that his very existence was a threat to the US in that he might plan some sort of attack eventually.
Is that a fair assessment? Or are you simply saying that Iraq supported terrorists and leaving it at that? Just trying to get my head around the other side of this argument as I've never understood it from the beginning.
In either case, how do you answer to the fact that the US put him in power a decade ago, and, seemingly, for its own benefit as opposed to the people of Iraq, knowing full well what kind of person he was. Or, if not Iraq, then any number of other countries/conflicts that the US has had its hands in behind the scenes?
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)"
I have never heard Bush use a Saddam-9/11 connection as a justification for the war. I'm not sure where this comes from. I guess there's probably some quotes out there that have been interpreted that way, and that is where it comes from, but I've never believed that was the case.
Bush's justification for the war as I understand (and support) is this:
-- Saddam supports and harbors terrorists.
-- Saddam shares a hatred for the USA with some very extreme terrorists who have recently proved their dedication and desire to kill many Americans.
--Saddam has used WMD in the past and most likely has some right now (this is according to intelligence reports from MULTIPLE COUNTRIES, not just the USA).
--If Saddam chose to sell or give these WMD to these terrorists the consequences would be horrific.
--Saddam has failed to adequately prove the distruction/disposal of WMD we knew he had (as required by the UN), thus he most likely still has them somewhere.
----->Thus Saddam must be removed, to reduce the threat of WMD landing in the hands of terrorists willing and able to use them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Liberating millions of Iraqis who had been raped, tortured, and murdered by Saddam for decades was an added benefit. One that was obviously played up after the lack of discovery of the WMD that EVERYBODY thought we would find (and still may).
As to your other question about propping up evil dictators, there are no easy answers. I certainly don't claim have answers to everything, or expect all of my answers to be right all of the time. I'm simply giving my opinions, to give a voice to the other side of the arguments that are very rarely seen on this board.
All I can say is that I think the US has made some bad decisions in the past and will continue to make some bad decisions in the future regarding foreign policy. I believe that these bad decisions were made believing they were acting in the best interest of the US at the time, and in some circumstances this turned out not to be the case. There have certainly been bad politicians (and still are) that will work toward their own self interests, disregarding public interests. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 15:52:55
I don't think you'll find many people opposed to Afghanistan, pacifists excluded. The world was behind the US in that, I'd say. But, you have to wonder, what happened that all of that support and goodwill disappeared to quickly as a result of Iraq?
Part of it is that I don't think I've ever heard Bush justify the war on the grounds of harbouring terrorists. I've heard him connect Iraq to 9/11 or rather try, I've heard talk of liberating the Iraqis, but perhaps I missed it... did he ever claim to be going after terrorists in the country?
I suppose I now understand where you're coming from: Saddam is a terrorist, he had to be gotten rid of whether he had done anything in the past decade or not to pose an international threat, the point is that his very existence was a threat to the US in that he might plan some sort of attack eventually.
Is that a fair assessment? Or are you simply saying that Iraq supported terrorists and leaving it at that? Just trying to get my head around the other side of this argument as I've never understood it from the beginning.
In either case, how do you answer to the fact that the US put him in power a decade ago, and, seemingly, for its own benefit as opposed to the people of Iraq, knowing full well what kind of person he was. Or, if not Iraq, then any number of other countries/conflicts that the US has had its hands in behind the scenes?
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 15:02:59
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
That's exactly my point: it seems a rather arbitrary reason to invade a whole country. What are we calling harbouring, and who qualifies as a terrorist?
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)"
Regardless of how strict your definition of harbouring or terrorist, you're going to have a hard time acquitting Saddam or the Taliban. I understand what you're saying, and agree that the burden of proof required to invade a country is extremely high, but Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty clear examples of countries that were harbouring and supporting terrorists. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 14:53:22
That's exactly my point: it seems a rather arbitrary reason to invade a whole country. What are we calling harbouring, and who qualifies as a terrorist?
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| harringk |
Posted - 09/15/2004 : 14:44:46
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Does the US not harbour any terrorists?
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)"
Examples please. What's your definition of terrorist for this question? |
|
|
