Politics/Elections/World News

ahochaude wrote:
Yes. :say yes:

Hey, what's a Chage and Aska reference doing on this thread? Ha ha, just kidding.

[image]

ahochaude wrote:[image]

HAHAHAHAHA. That actually made me laugh out loud. :rofl:

ahochaude wrote:[image]

AHAHAHAH touche :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:

hate politics discussions it seems endless

both party can argue for almost forever :beaten: :mrgreen:

Thanks... Bye!

So who won today's VP debate? I was watchin' the Yanks lose. :hehe:

bmwracer wrote:So who won today's VP debate? I was watchin' the Yanks lose. :hehe:

Hmmm. All the polls I've seen say Edwards won big time.

My opinion? I was bored out of my skull.

Big Dick does a heck of a rhetorical soft shoe. But some of the whoppers he told were lame enough for your average 6th grader to see through.

But Edwards came off soft, and unsure. At least to me.

Geezer wrote:

Hmmm. All the polls I've seen say Edwards won big time.

My opinion? I was bored out of my skull.

Big Dick does a heck of a rhetorical soft shoe. But some of the whoppers he told were lame enough for your average 6th grader to see through.

But Edwards came off soft, and unsure. At least to me.

You shoulda watched the game, Geez. The Twins pitcher walked a tightrope nearly the entire game... :sweat:

McCain. Always felt Powell was more politician than soldier, though I won't use Iran-Contra as a factor. More a political scandal than great crisis as it was blown up to be.

vibius wrote:

I personally believe that Reagan-Bush Sr. are responsible for aiding and funding Bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was building his power base there.

You'd be wrong. There were two groups of Muj: The Afghan Muj and the Arab Muj. The US provided money and weapons to the Afghan faction. Saudi Arabia and other ME countries provided funding for the Arab jihad-happy idiots - BL and his friends.

Also Bin Laden was not building his organization yet. He was busy "fighting" a war. Fighting is in "" because Bin Laden was a quartermaster(supply pogue-type), who mostly stayed in Pakistan, and not the "billy-bad-ass" he tries to pass himself off as.

Kijinnmaru wrote:
You'd be wrong. There were two groups of Muj: The Afghan Muj and the Arab Muj. The US provided money and weapons to the Afghan faction. Saudi Arabia and other ME countries provided funding for the Arab jihad-happy idiots - BL and his friends.

Also Bin Laden was not building his organization yet. He was busy "fighting" a war. Fighting is in "" because Bin Laden was a quartermaster(supply pogue-type), who mostly stayed in Pakistan, and not the "billy-bad-ass" he tries to pass himself off as.

Whhoooo hoo, I KNEW this thread wasn't dead.

Keep it going folks, keep it going. No hard feelings, 'K ;) ? We all got 'pinions, so, go, go, go . . .

Nobody, Republican or Democrat, is very clean here, in terms of training and weapons sales.

In 1979 Carter signed a directive of covert support for the Mujahedin who were fighting the soviets in Afghanistan. Osamma Been Forgotten was involved there.

The Administration said they wanted to give Russia their own Viet Nam experience.

Remember the 10 year war between Iran and Iraq in the 80's?

How did Iran get all the weapons they needed to run a ten year war?

The Iran Contra affair:

In October and November 1986, two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed.

These operations were the provision of assistance to the military

activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to

October 1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in

contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-

export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials

announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran

had been diverted to the contras.

Reagan White House officials charged, and how it turned out.

(1) Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress;

(2) Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(3) John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(4) Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress;

(5) Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North;

(6) Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;

(7) Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(8) Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(9) Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury before Congress;

(10) Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury and false statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush;

(11) Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress;



"How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them."
Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot, Scottish Sunday Herald Sept. 8, 2002

According to the article the U.S. during the Regan administration, and right on into the first Bush administration, the U.S. was selling weapons, conventional, chemical and biological, and the technology to produce chemical weapons, to Iraq.

The Article cites the U.S. Senate Committe findings when they decided to put a stop to it.

Osama was part of the Arab muj group, not the Afghan group that the US supported. The Arab group didn't want, nor did they take, support from non-Muslim countries. They had a completely different channel that they received aid from. Weapons probably reached his group eventually, but saying we directly helped and aided him because he was involved there is like saying we're responsible for the rape of Nangking by the Japanese because we helped them modernize pre-1900's and they were invloved there. And by the way, he's not forgotten. Just because you don't hear about what's going on there in the news doesn't mean there isn't happenings under the radar.

You'll also notice that most of the conventional weapons the Iraqis used were Russian, French, and German. Still, Iran was the bigger threat in the region. Even the other Arab states wanted Iran contained. We supported the USSR in WW2, then stood off against them for half a century. Such is geo-politics.

Kijinnmaru wrote:You'd be wrong.

No. Bin Laden did receive support from us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

I found a lot of information with a web search for related keywords. I think you'd be wrong to say that Bin Laden didn't benefit from US support.

Also Bin Laden was not building his organization yet.

He didn't make use of any of his relationships he made at that time? I think he did.

The report you posted is very vague, and never says that the US funded or trained Bin Laden. It says:

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Now you're own opinions can take that as they funded Bin Laden, but it doesn't take in account that there were two groups fighting the Soviets there; the Afghan Mujihadeen and the "Arab Afghans" which OBL was part of. Money funneled by the US to Afghanistan went to the Afghans. The Arab Afghans were fighting their own jihad and was funded through the Saudis. Completely different support systems that were not connected. The CIA men who oversaw the disbursement also said they never sent anything to Bin Laden, or even knew who he was at the time. You'll also note that the date of your article was soon after 9/11, when everyone wanted to do their exposes and no one had done any serious research yet.

As far as the expert's quote, I'd like to know how he came about that considering:
1. Bin Laden has himself denied that he ever received or noticed support from the US.
2. Even at that time, Bin Laden was anti-American and would have attacked any CIA men.(the old Zionist/Israel/Palestine thing)
3. Bin Laden would not have been an ideal choice to be trained because he stayed mostly in Pakistan as a supply guy, and not the super commando he sees himself as.
4. Bin Laden wasn't even a pimple on the CIA's radar at the time. There would be no reason to seek him out because he wasn't significant.

Even the 9/11 report states that Bin Laden didn't receive assistance from the US. Does this mean that the US has clean hands on this matter? No. But it's a world of difference from what you are trying to imply, that the Reagan/Bush administration is to blame for Al Qaeda. That is just typical partisan politics BS.

Kijinnmaru wrote:But it's a world of difference from what you are trying to imply, that the Reagan/Bush administration is to blame for Al Qaeda. That is just typical partisan politics BS.

That's not an accurate characterization of what I was trying to imply.

Earlier in the thread, gregsan said he believed that Clinton was to blame for the current terrorism we are facing, and I was just trying to illustrate that if you are going to blame previous administrations, you shouldn't stop at just the one prior. I think the belief that Bin Laden did get some CIA support (direct or indirect) under Reagan is pretty widespread, so it seems reasonable to me that if Clinton is to be blamed, then we ought to also examine how Reagan "contributed" to the current state of affairs.

Not to get into a raucous debate before I head off to bed, but there are important things to consider for either side. I'll try and make a list later on, but lemme throw in two.

1. The war in Iraq is illegal in pretty much every way according to international law (trust me, I'm not saying the war is a "good" or "bad" thing, just that it was flat-out illegal under the current system. Look at the U.N. resolutions and customary international law/previous precedents).

2. There are 3-4 Supreme Court justices that have a high chance of retiring in the next 4-8 years. Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens almost for sure, and possibly Ginsburg. That's two conservatives, one moderate, and one liberal that would be leaving the Court. Pretty much the balance of power would shift depending on who got into office and what justices are appointed.

If you want more specific information on either of these issues, let me know. I'll join in later after I sleep for a bit. =)

Kijinnmaru wrote:The report you posted is very vague, and never says that the US funded or trained Bin Laden. It says:

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Now you're own opinions can take that as they funded Bin Laden, but it doesn't take in account that there were two groups fighting the Soviets there; the Afghan Mujihadeen and the "Arab Afghans" which OBL was part of. Money funneled by the US to Afghanistan went to the Afghans. The Arab Afghans were fighting their own jihad and was funded through the Saudis. Completely different support systems that were not connected. The CIA men who oversaw the disbursement also said they never sent anything to Bin Laden, or even knew who he was at the time. You'll also note that the date of your article was soon after 9/11, when everyone wanted to do their exposes and no one had done any serious research yet.

As far as the expert's quote, I'd like to know how he came about that considering:
1. Bin Laden has himself denied that he ever received or noticed support from the US.
2. Even at that time, Bin Laden was anti-American and would have attacked any CIA men.(the old Zionist/Israel/Palestine thing)
3. Bin Laden would not have been an ideal choice to be trained because he stayed mostly in Pakistan as a supply guy, and not the super commando he sees himself as.
4. Bin Laden wasn't even a pimple on the CIA's radar at the time. There would be no reason to seek him out because he wasn't significant.

Even the 9/11 report states that Bin Laden didn't receive assistance from the US. Does this mean that the US has clean hands on this matter? No. But it's a world of difference from what you are trying to imply, that the Reagan/Bush administration is to blame for Al Qaeda. That is just typical partisan politics BS.

Well, I think the real issue here is that if there was a connection between the Taliban government and al Qaeda as the current administration has us believe, money from the U.S. government definitely went to the former freedom muja's that are the current day Taliban, and if the Taliban were supporting terrorists as they say, then it might be safe to say that bin Laden was in a way helped by American support of the Afghans in the 80's. Although the support systems may have been separate back then, I think it is a distinction without a difference in the current day world.

Personally, I don't really think it's all that important who funded who back in the day. The U.S. has always had their hands in honeypots/cookiejars where they don't really belong.

even tho i am in nz and cant vote, i think iam entitled to an opinion
i would vote for kerry, i have never really liked bush

and btw, someone here must have seen farenhight 911 :hehe: i bet there are a lot of people who hate mike moore and that movie lol