Congratulations Bush on New Milestone!!

[Frogman]

I don't take offense at your comments.

With all due respect, I joined a car forum to talk cars, not politics. If I want to see boobs, I'll go to ntfu2.com. If I wanted to see politics treads, I'd go to a politics forum. Lord knows there are tons of them. I'll have to take your word on the "corvette guys" thing and their politics.

I must be the only one who's noticed Fossten's name calling in this forum and how quickly he stoops down to that act. Especially all those Car related posts he makes.. You make one negative comment towards him, and he pulls out the "Personal attack! Personal Attack!" card. Yet, when it's his turn to call people names, that's ok. And if all the "personal jabs" show "lack of respect and creativeness" as you put it.... Oh Lord, do we have us a winner with my buddy Fossten.

Gimme a break, huh? The guy is so into himself and his politics, it's actually sickening.

Eh... fkit. I'm probalby beating a dead horse anyways. You guys have your nice circle jerk in this forum. As Old School would say, "I'm gonna go play with cars" .

 

[TheDude]

I don't take offense at your comments.

With all due respect, I joined a car forum to talk cars, not politics. If I want to see boobs, I'll go to ntfu2.com. If I wanted to see politics treads, I'd go to a politics forum. Lord knows there are tons of them. I'll have to take your word on the "corvette guys" thing and their politics.

I must be the only one who's noticed Fossten's name calling in this forum and how quickly he stoops down to that act. Especially all those Car related posts he makes.. You make one negative comment towards him, and he pulls out the "Personal attack! Personal Attack!" card. Yet, when it's his turn to call people names, that's ok. And if all the "personal jabs" show "lack of respect and creativeness" as you put it.... Oh Lord, do we have us a winner with my buddy Fossten.

Gimme a break, huh? The guy is so into himself and his politics, it's actually sickening.

Eh... fkit. I'm probalby beating a dead horse anyways. You guys have your nice circle jerk in this forum. As Old School would say, "I'm gonna go play with cars" .

I have to disagree with you, having a political section is a benefit as politics play an important role in everyone's life, even if you live under a rock, politics will affect you in some way. It's also a separate part of the forum so if you don't want to talk politics or deal with a certain person who visits this forum it's easy, do not click on the link.

 

[TheDude]

You sound like a woman; all anger, no thought or reasoning.

LOL... I dare you to tell that to the women in your family and mean it.

 

[fossten]

We declared war on Japan who was an allie of Germany after the attack on Pearl Harbor not on Gremany. Declaring war on Japan caused Germany to declare war on the US.

Wow what an idiot. You forget that the German subs were sinking our ships at the time. You also forget that Germany was in the process of bombing England, ONE OF OUR ALLIES, into oblivion at that time. Not to mention various and sundry other European nations. Go read a history book from the 9th grade and get back to me, moonbat.

*owned*

Next!

 

[fossten]

Well I never had a problem with you guys in Afghanistan. That was justified IMO. Iraq and Al-Quaeda? No link. Even the 9/11 Commission said there was no sufficient evidence of Iraq/Al-Queda. Heck...Bush had a closer realtionship to Al-Queda when the Taliban was invited to Texas than Saddam had with Al-Queda...

And no...the flames never worry me. Fossten is harmless too. I do enjoy his explosive repsonses though!!

You couldn't be more wrong about there being no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Don't you watch the news? Or do you just log on to leftwingwackopussy.org for your information? The FACTS are that Iraqi documents translated, not to mention the fact that Al Zarqawi was acknowledged to have been in Iraq BEFORE THE INVASION, prove that there was a link.

Go do some research before you make unsubstantiated, ignorant claims.

 

[fossten]

Don't look like he does. At least according to his last 500 posts.

Makes me wonder though... why come and debate politics on a CAR RELATED forum? Not e-thuggish enough (Oh snap, I just personally attacked him - Get over it Fossy) to argue politics on Forums that are geared towards your subject?


Oh Well... I guess there's one in every village.

Hey tadpole,

I see you've jumped on the name-calling bandwagon. Considering that my real name has been posted here numerous times, and considering you won't bother posting your real name nor address me by either my name nor by my screen name, it appears you have very little room to talk about personal attacks. So you give no respect and you get none. I guess you've read my last 500 posts? LOL And thank you for noncontributing to this thread.

 

[Marcus]

You couldn't be more wrong about there being no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Don't you watch the news? Or do you just log on to leftwingwackopussy.org for your information? The FACTS are that Iraqi documents translated, not to mention the fact that Al Zarqawi was acknowledged to have been in Iraq BEFORE THE INVASION, prove that there was a link.

Go do some research before you make unsubstantiated, ignorant claims.

You should take your own advice. According to the documents you refer to (the same ones that an embarrasses Pentagon had to take down after it was revealed that they contained info on how to build a nuclear bomb), Iraqi intelligence was looking for Zarqawi, not working with him. From a March 17th Washington Post article:

Several pages of one document indicate that Iraqi intelligence officials in August 2002 were searching for members of the al-Qaeda organization who were reported to be in Iraq. One document indicates that al-Qaeda had Iraqi supporters. Several photos are attached, including one that appears to be of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist leader now operating in Iraq.

. . . . . .

Another of the released documents, from November 2001, sought more information about rumors that Islamic fighters were responding to the post-Sept. 11 U.S. attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. "Chatter among the population that there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi volunteers estimated at 3000 men have traveled unofficially (illegally) to Afghanistan and joined the Mujahedeen to fight with them and help them in thwarting the imperialist American Zionist attack." The Iraqi intelligence official wanted to see if there was more information available on that subject.

Rather than showing evidence of cooperation between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, it seem that quite the opposite was true. Iraqi intelligence was trying to track them down. The "Iraqi supporters" the document refers to were obviously not endorsed by the government.

EDIT:

In addition, the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq "BEFORE THE INVASION" proves squat. Nor does the much-touted fact that he was treated in a Baghdad hospital. Ramzi Yousef was treated in a New Jersey hospital in 1993. Does that mean that our government was in cooperation with al-Qaeda too?

 

[Calabrio]

On the issue of having a political section on a car related forum-

It's a good idea, because it helps build a sense of community. And, as is often done, this forum is usually segregated because of the passionate nature of the topics and often the people who are willing to discuss them.

And while I don't agree with some people who participate here, I have come to both respect some of them and even consider them "friends" within this online community. People who I would do a favor for if they asked.

Sometimes, that backfires, but regardless...

Further more, forums like this introduce Mark VIII types with LS owners and Cadillacs.

 

[daves2000ls]

my heart goes out to the friends and family of the fallen!you can not compare the currant chain of events to any other war.The coward Bin ladden drew first blood, instead of attacking Military targets like the Japs he decided to to take out civilians-as much as I hate war or dislike Bush he has gotten the job done,most likely Bin ladden is dead,his generals are dead his plan has failed and ww3 has not started .America is still here,freedom and capitalism is growing through out the sworld

RRocket if you where pres what would you have done?

so the pentagon is a civilian target?

 

[Calabrio]

so the pentagon is a civilian target?

You're making a point of this, so apparently you think this distinction is important. Why don't you just move forward and explain the point you're trying to make.

 

[daves2000ls]

That's one of the most immature posts I've ever read on this forum. Listen to yourself, spewing your po wittle emotions all over the rest of us. You sound like a woman; all anger, no thought or reasoning. You obviously have no conception of what it takes to keep a nation safe or free.

You certainly don't understand the purpose of the military. You think the military should be hidden safely away so the boys won't be in harm's way. That's idiotic. The military is only designed for two things: To kill people and break things. If anything was a waste of the military's time, it was the Meals on Wheels in Somalia that Clinton sponsored in his Presidency. Your opinion is a joke. You don't even think we're at war, and you are so ignorant as to think that Iraq was no threat to us, this despite the fact that they threatened us and our allies with WMDs.

The FACTS are that our nation was weakened because of Clinton's appeasement and incompetent policies, and we were attacked because of it. We are at war, and Iraq is only one front we are fighting in that war. You still haven't explained satisfactorily why a comparison to WWII is inappropriate. The terrorists and their sponsoring nations ARE A THREAT to the rest of that continent known as the Middle East, and in case you forgot, we have ALLIES over there (or are you a Jew-hater?). The leader of Iran thinks he is the beginning of the second coming of the 12th Imam which will destroy Israel and the West, and he has nukes. Oh, but there's no threat, right?

We know for a FACT that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. There's no absolute proof that he was behind 9/11, but that doesn't matter. Germany wasn't behind Pearl Harbor, either, but at least Roosevelt had the sense to know that a Nazi-dominated Europe would bode ill for us. The parallels are startlingly clear FOR THOSE WITH HALF A BRAIN. Sorry you're not in that category. If you're going to spew hate and ignorance all over the rest of us you will be marginalized just like Johnny and Phil. Congratulations for putting yourself on the side of the far left and the truly ignorant in this country.

actually, in ww2 germany declared war on the US for declaring war on japan. US declaration on Japan was on 9 December 1941, Germany's declaration on the US was on 11 December 1941.

 

[daves2000ls]

Wow what an idiot. You forget that the German subs were sinking our ships at the time. You also forget that Germany was in the process of bombing England, ONE OF OUR ALLIES, into oblivion at that time. Not to mention various and sundry other European nations. Go read a history book from the 9th grade and get back to me, moonbat.

*owned*

Next!

well, i guess that'd be me.

dude, the battle of britain (air) had been won by the time the Japs attacked Pearl, as for the sinking of US ships by subs, the ships shouldve stayed out of the war zone. Germany called off operation sealion, the invasion of england and was busy trying to get to the oil fields in the middle east, that we and the british fought so hard to defend, a little ironic that we would defend them from the germans only to have them hate us. and they were off breaking their non-aggression pact with the USSR in operation Barbarosa, scheduled for late spring of 1941 but was set back due to a blunderous campaign by Mussolini's troops in the Balkans. oh, yeah, im a history major by the way, specializing in military history.

 

[daves2000ls]

the point is that had the plane not been crashed into the pentagon there would have been no military target, therefore no justification for a military response. at least in my mind. had it just been the towers in NY i say let the FBI or NYPD handle it.

 

[Calabrio]

the point is that had the plane not been crashed into the pentagon there would have been no military target, therefore no justification for a military response. at least in my mind. had it just been the towers in NY i say let the FBI or NYPD handle it.

I'm stunned by your statement.

So, if an international terrorist organization, with known state sponsors, blew up a the Mall of America, the FBI should and the local PD should make it a criminal issue?

Or, had the Japanese bombed a deli on Hawaii, the U.S. shouldn't have declared war, but the Hawaii 5-0 should handled it?

 

[TheDude]

the point is that had the plane not been crashed into the pentagon there would have been no military target, therefore no justification for a military response. at least in my mind. had it just been the towers in NY i say let the FBI or NYPD handle it.

Last time I checked, an attack on American soil is an attack on American soil... Also, how exactly would the FBI and especailly the NYPD go after Bin Laden? Yea, I know that he's been "marginalized" by Bush and Co. and I personally think that is a load of sh!t.

 

[Calabrio]

Last time I checked, an attack on American soil is an attack on American soil... Also, how exactly would the FBI and especailly the NYPD go after Bin Laden? Yea, I know that he's been "marginalized" by Bush and Co. and I personally think that is a load of sh!t.

Bin Laden hasn't been marginalized, but it's important to not overstate it. He's not acting independently. He didn't fund the attack, mastermind it, organize it, or actively do that much. He was an effective fund raiser and cheerleader. He's a figure head, and that has power, but that's about it now.

But the military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't about revenge, they're about reducing the ability of the Islamic fundamentalist organizations to strike us domestically again.

Killing Bin Laden, alone, wouldn't have made the world safer. Make him the single focus would have been a waste of energy. He's not even the head of one of the snakes in a pit of them.

 

[fossten]

well, i guess that'd be me.

dude, the battle of britain (air) had been won by the time the Japs attacked Pearl, as for the sinking of US ships by subs, the ships shouldve stayed out of the war zone. [translation: It's our fault Germany sunk our ships, which by the way were unarmed civilian ships - nice job of being anti-American, buddy, Heil Hitler to you too.] Germany called off operation sealion, the invasion of england and was busy trying to get to the oil fields in the middle east, that we and the british fought so hard to defend, a little ironic that we would defend them from the germans only to have them hate us. [and this is our fault, that radical muslims hate us? Go back to school and learn about Islam before you make a fool of yourself.] and they were off breaking their non-aggression pact with the USSR in operation Barbarosa, scheduled for late spring of 1941 but was set back due to a blunderous campaign by Mussolini's troops in the Balkans. oh, yeah, im a history major by the way, specializing in military history.

I can only blame your instructor, then, for your poor understanding of our involvement in WWII. The fact is that Winston Churchill and Roosevelt recognized the threat to the world in the Axis powers and decided to do something about it. Nobody but the Germans were to blame for sinking our ships, your anti-American assertions notwithstanding. Sounds like you studied military history under the other Churchill (Ward).

 

[TheDude]

Bin Laden hasn't been marginalized, but it's important to not overstate it. He's not acting independently. He didn't fund the attack, mastermind it, organize it, or actively do that much. He was an effective fund raiser and cheerleader. He's a figure head, and that has power, but that's about it now.

But the military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't about revenge, they're about reducing the ability of the Islamic fundamentalist organizations to strike us domestically again.

Killing Bin Laden, alone, wouldn't have made the world safer. Make him the single focus would have been a waste of energy. He's not even the head of one of the snakes in a pit of them.

Bush's own words where "I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama]" and he did say "a person [Osama] who has now been marginalized".

And Osama being a hero of sorts to jihadist is a treat to us, he is a rallying point and he is extremely rich. You don't think with a phone call he could have millions of funds transfered from his Swiss (or other) bank accounts to any terrorist group to buy a bomb, planes tickets, training etc.?

The guys is linked to what 3-4 bombings against America? The right has thrown a fit many times pointing out how Clinton failed to kill him when he had the chance, but now that Bush "marginalizes" him it's of no consequence?

 

[Calabrio]

Bush's own words where "I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama]" and he did say "a person [Osama] who has now been marginalized".

I'm not sure how to respond, I think I misunderstood you're emphasis
-
He has been marginalized due to the response of the U.S. His ability to operate effectively has been eliminated. Yes.

But he hasn't been marginalized in terms of priority, or artificially in regards to his importance. He's not still operating, yet the government has simply decided arbitrarily that he wasn't the number one priority.

Maybe that's more clear?

And Osama being a hero of sorts to jihadist is a treat to us, he is a rallying point and he is extremely rich. You don't think with a phone call he could have millions of funds transfered from his Swiss (or other) bank accounts to any terrorist group to buy a bomb, planes tickets, training etc.?

As a rallying point he is very powerful, agreed.

As for being extremely rich- not really. He was, but virtually all of his money has been frozen and seized. Much of that was done before 9/11.

His strength was fundraising and he would be able to get money. But, since he's been marginalized, he's not able to do that directly. He's likely in Pakistan right now, making absolutely sure to leave no electronic profile. He can't use electronics, cell phones, satellite phones, ect. without risking a tomahawk missile flying into his tent.

The guys is linked to what 3-4 bombings against America? The right has thrown a fit many times pointing out how Clinton failed to kill him when he had the chance, but now that Bush "marginalizes" him it's of no consequence?

If Clinton had chased him into the no-man's land of Pakistan, forcing him to live among the rural tribes, without any immediate communication to the outside world, then he wouldn't have been able to participate in 9/11.

As it is right now, given that Bin Laden is likely in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the cost associated with getting him is too great. Sending in U.S. troops would cost lives, but even more devesatating would be the instability that would result in Pakistan. Pakistan is NUCLEAR muslim country on the perpetual brink of civil war and war over it's borders with India. U.S. troops operating in the country could just been the trigger that causes Mussarif to loose his control of the government, putting that nation into the hands of the radicals... who would then control a nuclear state.

So, if you can keep him hiding in a cave, marginalized, or risk Pakistan falling into the hands of radical Islam, you leave him where he is.

The guys is linked to what 3-4 bombings against America? The right has thrown a fit many times pointing out how Clinton failed to kill him when he had the chance, but now that Bush "marginalizes" him it's of no consequence?

Additional point- your saying that he's linked to a handful of bombings against America. That's true. But he's only involved with ONE since George W. Bush became President. So we're doing something right.

 

[daves2000ls]

I can only blame your instructor, then, for your poor understanding of our involvement in WWII. The fact is that Winston Churchill and Roosevelt recognized the threat to the world in the Axis powers and decided to do something about it. Nobody but the Germans were to blame for sinking our ships, your anti-American assertions notwithstanding. Sounds like you studied military history under the other Churchill (Ward).

we were involved in ww2 for pretty much the same reason we're involved in this little police action in iraq. some dumb dictator pissed off a president so he allowed someone to attack us on our own soil then riled the country up to go after them, but this time, the president that did it did not have the support of the people from the time he was put in office by the supreme court. this time the president didnt get us out of a great depression, this time our president spent our surplus on a war that we should have finished a decade before it started. had bush sr. done a better job in 1991 we wouldnt be there now. the litte thing in somalia was a humanitarian effort to save a country that was starving. clinton was definitely in the right sending marines and rangers there to make sure the food was delivered. as for it being our fault that our ships were sunk, it was our fault. think about it, if someone tells you not to go somewhere or you will be shot would you go there and expect to not be shot? no, and we were "neutral" yet under the lend lease act of 1940 britain could receive munitions from the US. Hmm, sounds pretty neutral, would it be neutral to give munitions to Hitler? or to Bin Laden, was arming him and training him a good idea, no and who did that, umm, Bush Sr. As for the FBI and NYPD chasing down Bin Laden, they could probably do a better job than a military, at least tracking people is what they do, hell, let the texas rangers go after him (not the baseball team). im not saying that literally they should be sending New York cops to iraq, that simply could never work, but, I am saying that without the attack on the Pentagon there would have been no military attack, so it should be civilian v. civilian. maybe we, yes, you and i, should go to iraq. give me a gun and some ammo and ill go kill some towelheads with you. im not defending the enemy of our government, im just saying that our government is not handling this war the way they should. in ww2 civilian consumer production ended, in Korea it did not, in Viet Nam it did not. Did we win those wars, no. Well, we sort of won Korea since we did manage to keep South Korea democratic. But in Viet Nam we lost, and we lost because our government(military) is not capable of fighting limited scale wars anymore (phillipines 1903, Nicaragua 1926, Mexico 1916), we're too reliant on technology rather than men on the ground. we need to take this war out of iraq and into all of the middle east, including israel. just bomb the sh!t out of all of the region, with conventional bombs so we can go in afterwards and get what we really went there for to begin with, oil that is. black gold, texas tea. get clinton back in office, after all he is without a doubt the best president of this century. not hillary, although i think id rather have a woman as president over a bush. or any republican for that matter, you guys are going to need to change your party name after W leaves if you want to have another president.

 

[daves2000ls]

and really, unless you speak arabic you can't be 100% certain that bin laden actually accepted responsibility for 9/11, all you can do is take the media or the government's word for it. and can you really trust our government or media outlets?

 

[fossten]

we were involved in ww2 for pretty much the same reason we're involved in this little police action in iraq. some dumb dictator pissed off a president so he allowed someone to attack us on our own soil then riled the country up to go after them, but this time, the president that did it did not have the support of the people from the time he was put in office by the supreme court. this time the president didnt get us out of a great depression, this time our president spent our surplus on a war that we should have finished a decade before it started. had bush sr. done a better job in 1991 we wouldnt be there now. the litte thing in somalia was a humanitarian effort to save a country that was starving. clinton was definitely in the right sending marines and rangers there to make sure the food was delivered. as for it being our fault that our ships were sunk, it was our fault. think about it, if someone tells you not to go somewhere or you will be shot would you go there and expect to not be shot? no, and we were "neutral" yet under the lend lease act of 1940 britain could receive munitions from the US. Hmm, sounds pretty neutral, would it be neutral to give munitions to Hitler? or to Bin Laden, was arming him and training him a good idea, no and who did that, umm, Bush Sr. As for the FBI and NYPD chasing down Bin Laden, they could probably do a better job than a military, at least tracking people is what they do, hell, let the texas rangers go after him (not the baseball team). im not saying that literally they should be sending New York cops to iraq, that simply could never work, but, I am saying that without the attack on the Pentagon there would have been no military attack, so it should be civilian v. civilian. maybe we, yes, you and i, should go to iraq. give me a gun and some ammo and ill go kill some towelheads with you. im not defending the enemy of our government, im just saying that our government is not handling this war the way they should. in ww2 civilian consumer production ended, in Korea it did not, in Viet Nam it did not. Did we win those wars, no. Well, we sort of won Korea since we did manage to keep South Korea democratic. But in Viet Nam we lost, and we lost because our government(military) is not capable of fighting limited scale wars anymore (phillipines 1903, Nicaragua 1926, Mexico 1916), we're too reliant on technology rather than men on the ground. we need to take this war out of iraq and into all of the middle east, including israel. just bomb the sh!t out of all of the region, with conventional bombs so we can go in afterwards and get what we really went there for to begin with, oil that is. black gold, texas tea. get clinton back in office, after all he is without a doubt the best president of this century. not hillary, although i think id rather have a woman as president over a bush. or any republican for that matter, you guys are going to need to change your party name after W leaves if you want to have another president.

First of all, people aren't going to bother reading such a rambling rant, especially if you don't use paragraphs. Second, I can tell from the first few lines that you are a kook fringe conspiracy wacko who believes that Bush caused/allowed 9/11 just like Roosevelt caused/allowed Pearl Harbor. Confirms what I said about Ward Churchill. After all, anybody who believes Clinton is the best president of this century, considering he BARELY WAS PRESIDENT IN THIS CENTURY, has more issues than I care to deal with.

 

[fossten]

You should take your own advice. According to the documents you refer to (the same ones that an embarrasses Pentagon had to take down after it was revealed that they contained info on how to build a nuclear bomb), Iraqi intelligence was looking for Zarqawi, not working with him. From a March 17th Washington Post article:

This article refutes your assertion.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...middleeast_May570.xml&section=middleeast&col=

And so does this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts

This one shows that Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda after 9/11 but BEFORE the war:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

This one shows Saddam had ties to bin Laden:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600579/posts

And so does this one:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/27/220702.shtml

By the way, I've got dozens more articles I could link if I have to.

Now, I know that even if you have the guts to read the articles themselves, you may be tempted to filter the information through your pre-established (media) bias, but even so, I was able to get through to you about the stem cell amendment in Missouri, so maybe you'll give this a shot as well.

 

[RRocket]

You couldn't be more wrong about there being no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Don't you watch the news? Or do you just log on to leftwingwackopussy.org for your information? The FACTS are that Iraqi documents translated, not to mention the fact that Al Zarqawi was acknowledged to have been in Iraq BEFORE THE INVASION, prove that there was a link.

Go do some research before you make unsubstantiated, ignorant claims.[/QUOTE}

So the 9/11 Commission Report has it all wrong then? I agree Al-Queda is there NOW, but prior, there is little, if any information to support your claim.

So because Zargawi was in Iraq there's a link? Never mind the fact that Saddam and OBL versions of Islamic religion differed greatly. Heck, the Taliban was in the USA, so does that means there's a link between the USA supporting the Taliban? I mean..you guys DID send them millions. Not only did you give them money, but invited them to your country. And it's all documented. So by using your logic, it sounds like you did more for the Taliban than Iraq did for Al Queda......

 

[shagdrum]

The 9/11 commission report stated there was a link between Al-Queda and Iraq... but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11