A Wolf in Sheikhs Clothing:
Bush Business Deals with 9 Partners of bin Laden’s Banker

I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch.

People aren't going to look at it that way. They're more likely to see that a goof off cop just happened to go off shift leaving the next cop there to deal with the results of the goof off cop.

Bin Laden has specifically cited things like Somalia and the reaction to the USS Cole as examples of why he thought the US was a "paper tiger" and a good punch in our glass jaw would force us to leave Saudi Arabia. You do know that was the whole point of 9/11 from Al Qaeda's point of view right? Get the US out of Saudi Arabia so that he and his mnions could overthrow it to spread their particular form of Islam further to build towards an eventual war with the west.  Bin Laden hasn't been secret about his aims. 

"It was? All the fighters in Somalia were supported by Osama? Prove it, and then I'll listen."

There is clear links between Somalia and osama.

"I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch."

You are comparing Sept. 11 with a boat sinking? The fact is the Sept. 11 attacks were being planned at least two years before. Who's watch was that? I guess that doesn't matter because a democrat was in office.

"It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama."
"There is clear links between Somalia and osama. "

there are links between Bin Laden and Somalia. no doubt about that. there were (and still are) so many factions in Somalia that it would be rather surpirising if Bin Laden would have not had contact with one or two of them. btw. almost all of these factions are clan-based and not following some paricular ideology.

the fighters that gave the US hell were from General Aidid´s militia. hard to believe that Bin Laden supported him as Aidid was probably the most secular leader there, he was into smuggling Khat to Yemen and not into Islamic fundamentalism. Bin Laden rather supported some obscure splinter groups.

"Somehow I suspect that had Kerry been President (or Gore or Clinton) that the Taliban would still be in power. Certainly Saddam would have been."

don´t agree on the first one. the second is rather likely.

Afghanistan now looks pretty much like when the Soviets were leaving the country. large parts of the country are governed by local warlords. there´s a weak central government. and in the south (where the pipelines from Turkmenistan should be built, remember that was the reason why the Taleban were supported by Pakistan and other sources) there is strong resistance by Taleban fighters and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
it also seems the terror threat to the US allies in that region, the dictatorships of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (their leader is more bizarre than the one of North Korea) has become worse if you check the recent news.
so the real winner here is Iran as sooner or later the oil companies will get tired and build the pipelines through Iran, no matter wether there is an embargo or not.

i wonder what the future holds for Iraq and how the "nation building" plans look like. for sure there will be democracy as i am sure the US government knows just as well how the results will be. anybody remembers how that turned out in Algeria?

Brad still doesn't understand:

"It's kind of like the "No WMD" rantings. The people who were for the war previously are still for the war and the people who were against the war are still against it and using the "No WMD" as if they would somehow have been in favor of the war if they'd found stockpiles of mustard gas or something."

If Blix had found stockpiles of mustard gas that would have pulled a lot of people over to a point of view where at least removing the threat of those stockpiles would have been welcomed. But you believe what you want to.

As far as "Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care?", I think most Europeans could care less about how americans feel about them, that's nothing new. What's changed is that there's a growing group of people who were taught to feel safe for having the US as an ally, no longer feel that way. Be that because they no longer feel the US to be an ally of because it no longer feels safe. Funny thing power

There is clear links between Somalia and osama.

I asked for proof and you repeat the same statement.

Sure there were Al Qaeda fighters in Somalia, did they lead the fighting? Probably not, it was one warlord against another warlord, with Al Qaeda fighters, Somali fighters, American fighters, the French Foreign legion, and God knows who else.

Cheers

Danny: Yes but you still have to make the case as to why Americans should consider European opinion when voting for a Presidential candidate.

Blix, btw, WAS finding huge stockpiles of mustard gas and worse right up until they got kicked out in 1998. I assume you would have supported war in 1998? And if so, why not then in 2003? What changed?

Having said that, we also bombed several known Al Qaeda sites afterwards.

Which Clinton was widely criticized for I might add. I have noticed a trend lately with "conservatives" that tend to argue fervently on behalf of this administration regardless of any facts that contradict what they say. They tend to portray the current administration as flawless when it comes to decisions they have made and the policies they have produced. This is not only in JoeUser but in every political conversation I have had with this type of "conservative". This is not all conservatives that I speak of, but most I have talked to are not open-minded and/or ready to accept the fact that the government might have made mistakes. When engaged in an argument that goes against Bush they also tend to attack Kerry as if I have to be for him without me even eluding to that fact. I have noticed this with "liberals" as well but they are on the other side of the spectrum attacking every action Bush makes regardless of the facts stated. This whole Bush vs. Kerry thing is like lewis vs. holyfield except their ring is the WhiteHouse.

Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care? We elect presidents based on what they do for us. Not how happy they make Europeans. I'm sure Roosevelt wasn't too popular in Europe for quite awhile too.

Wow Brad... I've been reading a lot of ignorant and unsubstantianted arguments you've been making, but this one really rose to the top of the pile of crap you’ve been dumping out.

This is by far the most arrogant, isolationist, and dare I say… American thing I have ever read or heard.

Since we’re on the topic of who’s job it was to fight terrorism when it mattered most, does no one else realize that it is statements, and beliefs like this that make the US target number one for terrorists.

America bombs third world countries into rubble so routinely that it’s hardly news anymore, and then, just to pour salt into the wound, you seem to assume that the people being bombed are lesser forms of life, who might have something to say about it, but why would an American even fart in their direction, let alone listen to anything they have to say.

I’m really sorry you don’t realize this already, but if you and the boys in the White House continue to treat the rest of the world as sub-human, the US can only hope for more terrorist attacks, and less help fighting them.

Incidently international diplomacy is also a powerful tool that can be used to improve a nation’s economy, environment, credibility, and culture… all of which are things that are at, or near bottom-dropping-out levels in the United States.

A high-ranking military officer reveals how
Defense Department extremists suppressed information
and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

If Gore was the president, it would be a court case. That is the problem with Democrats, they are a bunch of lawyers. Lawyers think they are smarter than they are and everything can be settled in court. The first Word Trade Center case took 10 years. I live in New York and we don't have 10 years to wait. I would vote for Bin Laden before I would ever vote for any Democrat.

New York

 

Wow Brad... I've been reading a lot of ignorant and unsubstantianted arguments you've been making, but this one really rose to the top of the pile of crap you’ve been dumping out.

What is ignorant or unsubstantiated about pointing out the fact that Americans don't put much weight into European opinions before selecting a President? Do German voters worry what people in Brazil think of the candidates before voting?

This is by far the most arrogant, isolationist, and dare I say… American thing I have ever read or heard.

Ah, the double put down. And here you demonstrate why Americans don't care what Europeans think. Hypocricy and patronization in the same sentence. Again I ask: Do German or French voters consider the opinions of say Brazil or Mexico or Taiwan when selecting a leader? Unlikely. Heck, the French recently participated on a join miltiary manuever with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan around the Taiwanese elections. Classy.

America bombs third world countries into rubble so routinely that it’s hardly news anymore, and then, just to pour salt into the wound, you seem to assume that the people being bombed are lesser forms of life, who might have something to say about it, but why would an American even fart in their direction, let alone listen to anything they have to say.

So often you can't be bothered to list it.  Let me do it for you: The United States has bombed the following countries in the past decade: Iraq. Afghanistan. Serbia. There was also one building destroyed in Sudan.

Moreover, I never said or implied that we consider other people lesser forms of life. I just don't see why Americans should consider the views of some European country any more than some other country.

The problem with many Europeans, such as you, is that you're so arrogant and myopic that you don't realize that most European countries are fairly minor. For example, I said US voters should care about the opinion of European countries about the same as we care about the opinions of Bangladesh.

A statement you considered insulting because, obviously, you consider yourselves superior to the people of Bangaldesh. Bangladesh has a population of 138 million. That's higher than ANY European country. In fact, it's 50 MILLION more people than the most populated European country - Germany. So who's being arrogant?

So when voting for a President, Americans should do a poll of every country in the world to get their views on the candidates? Of course not. That's absurd. The job of the President is to represent the interests of the citizens of the United States. That's his job description.

 

The Europeans never liked us, they needed us. The Cold War is over and now they can say what they have held in for 50 years. If you believe the French or Germans are worried about the good of Americans you are a bigger idiot than Kerry.

I would say there is a cultural lag. Europeans tend to define things from their perspective (like everyone else).

So when they consider themselves more "worldly" than Americans, they really mean they know more about other European nations. Do they know what's happening in say Mexico? Or Guatamala? Probably not.

The cultural lag comes from not recognizing the changing geo-political realities. Europe, as a colletive world power, is in decline. This is especially true of Germany and France who are seeing their populations declining. Their economies stagnate. And their militaries becoming obsolete. But they still tend to view themselves as major world powers.

Let me give you an example: How often in these debates over Iraq have we heard about how France thinks about what we should do? Now, compare that to Japan. Japan has a larger population, a much higher GDP, and produces a lot more products and services that people use on a day to day basis. Yet France gets an incredible amount of attention. The US had Japan's support for its actions in Iraq. Japan has even sent troops there. But you rarely hear about that.

It's cultural lag. Many Europeans are unaware that individual European nations are not a major concern to most Americans. They can't go and pick presidential candidates based on what Belgium thinks any more than we're going to poll what Argentina thinks. But because Europeans beliee their opinons should matter more to us than other nations, they chaffe at when someone like me points out that Americans don't care. Nor should they care. National governments are suppoed to do what is best for their own citizens. Not what's best for some minor nation state across the ocean.

This isn't arrogance. I would expect that someone in Belgium is not going to care what someone in Pakistan thinks of their leaders when voting. Despite the fact that Pakistan has a vastly higher population. Citizens in Belgium should only care what their leaders will do for them.  Same in France. 

BTW, do you think the French worry what we think of Chirac? Poll Americans and those who even know who he is are liekly to have a generally unfavorable opinion. But you rarely hear about Europeans worrying what Americans think -- even though Americans can affect their lives a helluva lot more than Europeans can affect the lives of Americans.  Nor do you hear complaints by Americans that European voters shoudl care. We don't expect Europeans to care what we think when they vote for their leaders. But amazingly, Europeans expect us to care what they think of ours.