Still justified?

[Sheeana]

WASHINGTON—U.S. President George W. Bush conceded for the first time yesterday that the United States had no evidence indicating Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Bush made the comment in a brief encounter with reporters at the White House, an apparent bid to answer critics who have accused him of linking the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks to justify an ongoing occupation, which is responsible for mounting American deaths and draining an economy already mired in deficit.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.

But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden. Bush has let the perception that Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks fester for many months, most recently in his televised address to the nation on Sept. 7.

The result has been that seven in 10 Americans think Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings that killed approximately 3,000 people, a Washington Post poll released earlier this month found.

Bush, in his national plea for $87 billion (U.S.) in additional military and reconstruction funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, said Iraq had become the centre for the war on terrorism. He told Americans it was important to fight the terrorists on their ground before the battleground again became the United States.

"We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength," Bush said, "they are invited by the perception of weakness.

"And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our streets, in our own cities."

Bush's comments came a day after both U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was no link between the attacks and Saddam.

It appears to be a concerted effort by the Bush administration to move away from links they have always hinted at, without offering any evidence.

In a television interview Tuesday night, Rice said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

But when she was asked about the poll numbers showing seven in 10 Americans made the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, Rice said: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

At a Pentagon briefing Tuesday, Rumsfeld also toed the administration line.

When asked whether he felt Saddam was personally involved in the New York and Washington attacks, he said: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

Last weekend, however, Vice-President Dick Cheney, in a rare television interview, said stabilizing Iraq would cripple terrorists who "have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

He said he wasn't surprised by the poll results and said he didn't know whether there was a link between Saddam and the terrorist attacks.

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press. "That it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and conventional weapons, that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis provided bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have cited several links between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, Associated Press reported.

Documents found April 26 by the Star's Mitch Potter in the bombed headquarters of Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence service refer to an invitation by Saddam's government in 1998 for an Al Qaeda envoy to visit Baghdad

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154

Sexed up dossiers... Tony Blair in the hot seat... ignored intelligences... suicide... Inquiries... Lack of Weapons of Mass destruction. This topic has certainly been interesting to say the least. So, what are your thoughts now given all that has happened (or hasn't)? Do you still hold the same POV as pre-war? Could things have been done better? (or worse?)

[Elfmaster XK]

I think that war is/was/will always be futile.

Plus, I think that governments are too involved with themselves. Politics makes me angry.

In a television interview Tuesday night, Rice said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.

That sentence is a perfect example of why I hate them. The first one is subtle manipulation and the second is covering tracks. (As I perceive it.)

But anyway, in response to you Sheeana, I don't think things could've gone any better. With people this stupid in charge we could never have hoped for much.

I think replying to this was a bad idea.

[Lizra]

"With this stupid in charge"! That bad, eh!

Well....I'm glad Sadam Hussien was sent packing, though he's still out there, that's not good. I'm glad his sons are gone, but, if this was in the best interest of the US, I'm not sure yet. It was an interesting move, (to say the least! ) with lots of positives for the Iraqi people, so I'll hold judgement. World politics (human relations) are multi faceted and complex. I don't veiw this as a stituation where one can just go "right or wrong" in a nutshell and tie things up in a neat little package. The upcoming presidential election will be some icing on this cake. I have to tune out most of the "spin" and just watch what "really" happens. The story is nowhere near over. US needs to pull out, Iraqis need to take control and govern their country. A substantial amount of years (4 or 5) will help veiw this realistically, not with a knee jerk reaction.

[Sween]

I personally never felt the attack was justified at all. I never belived they had WMD or posed any threat to the west. As ive said i think he was quite happy playing dictator in his own little country.

Now heres the problem with this issue theres no doubting sadam was a bad man and the iraqi people are probably better off without him but i feel the allience has failed thus far to impliment a good system of government in Iraq!

I rember the stuff we were having fired at us when we went to war by both the US and the British goverments about the clear and present danger. Now it appears that they were incapiable of holding back a few stampeading cows let alone a military operation those have been rightly called into doubt.

Of the WMD no evidence has ever been found of these! makes you think

Of links with Al queda well britian probally has as many people living in it with links to Al queda as Iraq ever did!

the real thing that has bothred me about the war on iraq has been the power that Bush has had to go to war i mean no other country really backed him up or saw it the way he did i dont know if hes parinoid or just lives in his own world either way his justifications have proved ill founded so why did he go to war? Just clearing up his dads mess? If thats true im more affraid than any attack by osama could make me

[jerseydevil]

I think it was justified. As I have repeatedly said - it should have been done in 1991.

As for the comment in the article saying that "U.S. President George W. Bush conceded for the first time yesterday that the United States had no evidence indicating Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terror attacks." He NEVER EVER said that Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. That has just been people's own opinions. It's interesting that the Sun did not indicate that his statement was the result of a reporter's question concerning whether Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Bush never hinted at links either other than that Al Qaeda was known to be in Iraq (which they were).

Hussein managed to bury huge fighter jets in the sand - do you think it would be hard for him to bury or hide WMD? Whether we find WMD or not - there is no question as to whether he had them. The WHOLE world believed he had them - including Clinton while he was president. Also - WMD was only one reason for it - and not my main reason for supporting the war. I still think the Iraqi people are much better off without Hussein and it is obvious that the MAJORITY of Iraqis feel this way too. Some Iraqi and OUTSIDERS may not like us being in there - but it would be completely counterproductive for us to get out. There is NO WAY we can get out until the job is finished.

As for whether things could have been done better or worse - I think some things could have been better and some could have been far worse. The "do nothings" wanted to argue that the US was going to be suffering huge terrorist attacks on US soil - where we have not. The Arab league has accepted the interim government. Could the peace be going better - yes it could. But the attacks on American soldiers is occurring in a relatively small section of Iraq, while the rest of the area is getting back to normal.

Things weren't going to be miraculously fixed in Iraq, but I think that a lot has been done. I would rather spend the $89 billion working on stabalizing the area over there - than spend $89 billion rebuilding things here after a terrorist attack. There are several reason for the deficit - the main cause being the loss of high paying jobs as a result of unemployment, the downturn in the stock market (both of which started occuring a year before Bush became president), not to mention the outpouring of money that the government had to give after 9/11. Everyone seems to forget how devastating 9/11 was outside of the loss of human lives.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
I personally never felt the attack was justified at all. I never belived they had WMD or posed any threat to the west. As ive said i think he was quite happy playing dictator in his own little country.

yeah - I guess you're right. i guess Hussein never made the statement that he wanted to control all of the Middle East nor did he ever preemptively invade Kuwait. How long do you real think it would have been before he did act like his old self?

Now heres the problem with this issue theres no doubting sadam was a bad man and the iraqi people are probably better off without him but i feel the allience has failed thus far to impliment a good system of government in Iraq!

Why - what do you know about the government in Iraq? Do you know that they have been in Arab League meetings and that things are developing. That they are getting a security force? That the military is being built up? That in most of Iraq things are stable? it's just pretty much the area between Baghdad and Tikrit that has the problem.

I rember the stuff we were having fired at us when we went to war by both the US and the British goverments about the clear and present danger. Now it appears that they were incapiable of holding back a few stampeading cows let alone a military operation those have been rightly called into doubt.

That is a truly ignorant statement considering that the MILITARY OPERATION took all of 20+ days. This is a peace operation now - where a FEW do not want the US to succeed. There is a big difference.

Of the WMD no evidence has ever been found of these! makes you think

Right before Clinton left off he made a speech saying that Hussein was the single largest threat to the free world and that he had WMD. Only once in a while does the media play Clinton's speech to remind people that Clinton's intelligence also said that Hussein had WMD. I guess Europe doesn't show this speech he made because they just want to think it is all "big bad Bush's" war.

Of links with Al queda well britian probally has as many people living in it with links to Al queda as Iraq ever did!

Well that may be true - but Blair isn't inviting them to his country and giving them hospital treatment and meeting with them - is he?

the real thing that has bothred me about the war on iraq has been the power that Bush has had to go to war i mean no other country really backed him up

There were a lot of countries that backed the operation. Not all supplied troops to the military operation - but we had ships from Norway, soldiers from Australia and Britain, there are soldiers from Poland. Plus many other countries helped in many other ways. We didn't need that much help with the military operation.

or saw it the way he did i dont know if hes parinoid or just lives in his own world either way his justifications have proved ill founded so why did he go to war?

You know what - Europe was saying the same thing when Clinton started going after bin Ladin. if Clinton had followed through after the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombins - instead of listening to world opinion - we may not have had 9/11.

Just clearing up his dads mess? If thats true im more affraid than any attack by osama could make me

No - it was finishing a job that should have been done a long time again. Clinton even bombed Iraq several times - he just didn't have the balls to actually follow through with anything if there was even a hint of outcry. Clinton was purely a "by the polls" president. That's not a leader - that's a follower. We had the right to go into Baghdad when the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq - but we didn't. The Gulf War technically never ended - it was pretty much a cease fire with conditions - conditions Hussein did not meet - but the world was just too happy to let him be (just like they were too happy to just let Osama bin Ladin be and Hitler)

[Sween]

lol is there anything your presidents say that you dont believe?

Sadam got a good old ass kicking when he invaded Kuwait i think he realised the limits of his own power!

Lol if ignorance of bliss ur the happiest man alive! 20+ day operation admitally but we had mounths of propgander unlike you i didnt believe all all of it.

Look JD im sure you have a lot of faith in the word of your preseident i mean it not a politicians way to lie is it? But end of the day the US is gonna have to at some point come up with some evidence for all these claimes that they make? Dont you think. If you took your argueement for way to a court i think you would be laughed out.

Infact we do give them health care and also allow them to preach to people. Oh and we also allow them to become elected officials in our government (see shinn fain)

I fail to see what we ever had to gain from the war apart from Blair getting some brown noseing points!

Im sorry JD but i just fail to see how pissing a whole looad of Arabs off is gonna help against terrorism! I have never understood what u really hoped to achive with war on iraq! you have just made a whole heep of new problems. As history will show a nation only really gets sorted out when it sorts itself out

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
lol is there anything your presidents say that you dont believe?

No I don't trust everything they say. But the majority of the world felt he had WMD. The weapons inspectors left Iraq knowing Hussein still had WMD. So tell me who am I supposed to believe? You and the Sun newspaper? Sorry - I take what I know about the region, what I see on the news, what i know about history, what the government says and process the information and come up with my OWN ideas as to whether I feel we did the right thing or not.

Sadam got a good old ass kicking when he invaded Kuwait i think he realised the limits of his own power!

You really think that? That's sort of naive I think.

Lol if ignorance of bliss ur the happiest man alive! 20+ day operation admitally but we had mounths of propgander unlike you i didnt believe all all of it.

No - you just choose to believe the prapaganda on the otherside. See propaganda was on both sides. Like France, Russia and Germany - weren't against the war for humanitarian reasons - they were against the war because they had billions in deals with Hussein.

Look JD im sure you have a lot of faith in the word of your preseident i mean it not a politicians way to lie is it? But end of the day the US is gonna have to at some point come up with some evidence for all these claimes that they make? Dont you think. If you took your argueement for way to a court i think you would be laughed out.

Actually - we don't. As far as I'm concerned - Clinton should have gone in there when the weapns inspectors left. I think we should have rolled into Baghdad and finished the job before that in 1991. I think we have enough evidence of Saddam's regime with the mass graves. We didn't need Meloshivic attacking another country or having weapons of mass destruction to go in there. I don't think we needed it here. The way the middle east has been dealt with has had to change for a LONG time. It's about time we have gone in there to force some changes,

Infact we do give them health care and also allow them to preach to people. Oh and we also allow them to become elected officials in our government (see shinn fain)

You give them health for the same reason we give them health care. But I don't think that Blair is doing it out of kindness of his heart. We are at war with Al Qaeda. I don't know if you bother watching bin Ladin's tapes - but he has declared war on ALL the west. You have KNOWN Al Qaeda members in the government?

I fail to see what we ever had to gain from the war apart from Blair getting some brown noseing points!

By bringing about change in the Middle East. It has only been 5 months since the war ended. There have already been many improvements to the area. Is everythign perfect - no. But I thnk in the long wrong - as long as we stay in Iraq and see this through - things will get better. If we only react to terrorism - we will be destroyed. It's pure and simple.

Im sorry JD but i just fail to see how pissing a whole looad of Arabs off is gonna help against terrorism! I have never understood what u really hoped to achive with war on iraq! you have just made a whole heep of new problems.

it's amazing - isn't that the SAME feelings used with Hitler? if you took action against - you might just piss him off. What is it with you guys? bin Ladin's arguments change with the wind as to what he wants. The Middle east has been a powder keg for decades. it's better to control the explosion now - than wait for the whole region to errupt.

By the way - can you demonstrate the "whole heep of new problems" that have been created? Remeber these have to be NEW problems that didn't exist PRIOR to the war.

As history will show a nation only really gets sorted out when it sorts itself out

Actually - history shows the opposite to be true in most cases when it comes to dictators. You really think Hussein would have given up power? made changes? that his sons wouldn't have taken he regime to new extremes once they came to power? His sons were a thousand times worse than he was.

[Finrod Felagund]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
but the world was just too happy to let him be (just like they were too happy to just let Osama bin Ladin be and Hitler)

Actually, If I remeber correctly, it was the Americans who "let Hitler Be" even after the war started.

[Sween]

Please can someone please explain to me what the big deal with Bin Lardin is please? Im sorry its been 2 years now so a few of his supporters highjacked a couple of plance and flew them into the world trades centres. No offence but its hardly the most amazing act ever is it?

This is the opinion of many people in other countries yes the 9/11 attacks were bad but you have made a big deal out of them its probably because as a nation you have not been touched by major war on your own soil for a long time.

But i think a reality check is in order to go comparing Bin lardin to Hittler is a joke. Hittler was a reconised leader of his nation! And had huge power of industy and resources.

Now Bin Lardin is some terrorist and has you where he wants you. In terror of him!

Can i just ask you this one question now give me a honest answer. Why is that these people hate you and wanted to hurt you? was it because of your involvment in the middle east? was it because you stick your nose in where it not needed? well if it was dont you think youve just made things a hell of a lot harder on yourselves?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
Actually, If I remeber correctly, it was the Americans who "let Hitler Be" even after the war started.

Actually - it was a European War at that time. He was their neighbor. They're the ones that gave him Czechloslovakia in an effort to appease him.

We didn't get into it because it wasn't our war and Europe had just gotten us into one of their war about 20 years before. We lost 400,000+ soldiers during WWII.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually - it was a European War at that time. He was their neighbor. They're the ones that gave him Czechloslovakia in an effort to appease him.

We didn't get into it because it wasn't our war and Europe had just gotten us into one of their war about 20 years before. We lost 400,000+ soldiers during WWII.

what so a dictatorship which has invaded numerous countries and it setting about killing off an entire relgion is not your war? Yet a country which has never openly threatned you or has proven links to any terroist organisation is you war? And dont pull the Sadams a bad man out of the hat there are plenty of oppressive regimes out there and i dont see you going after them all!

We hadnt gotten you into any war either you chose to come and help after years of begging and millions of lives lost on our side!

You in these last few weeks have really began to show yourself up JD! A poor example of your country

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Please can someone please explain to me what the big deal with Bin Lardin is please? Im sorry its been 2 years now so a few of his supporters highjacked a couple of plance and flew them into the world trades centres. No offence but its hardly the most amazing act ever is it?

This is the opinion of many people in other countries yes the 9/11 attacks were bad but you have made a big deal out of them its probably because as a nation you have not been touched by major war on your own soil for a long time.

You have got to be kidding me. You mean to tell me that you think 9/11 was really not that big? Do you live in a hole and have no idea what bin Ladin has stated as his plan is?

Comments like your makes me wish that you gusy would get as devestating an attack. You are so ignorant of how huge those buildings were because you don't have anything like them in Europe. The held more office space than all of San Diego. Would you think it was a big frigging deal if a nuclear bomb was dropped on san Diego? True - there wasn't that many dead overall (just 3,000 innocent lives), but if it happened during the height of the work day you would have been talking about upwards of 50,000 people (that's the number who worked there). That does NOT include the visitors that would have been at the observation deck.

Here is a video tape I made - this shows the view from the roof and the observation deck...

High speed connection
56k

Don't talk ignorant crap like that.

But i think a reality check is in order to go comparing Bin lardin to Hittler is a joke. Hittler was a reconised leader of his nation! And had huge power of industy and resources.

Now Bin Lardin is some terrorist and has you where he wants you. In terror of him!

I wasn't comparing bin Ladin to Hitler - I was comparing Hussein. I actually think bin Ladin is far worse than Hitler or Hussein.

Can i just ask you this one question now give me a honest answer. Why is that these people hate you and wanted to hurt you? was it because of your involvment in the middle east? was it because you stick your nose in where it not needed? well if it was dont you think youve just made things a hell of a lot harder on yourselves?

It's not that at all. Are you so blind? Bin Ladin has repeatedly in his messgaes called on the destruction of the infidels. Anyone who does not conform to his islamic beliefs he wants destroyed. His goal is to destroy the west. He only uses our involvement to justify his attacks.

Maybe you should read what they teach in Saudi Arabia - Inside the Kingdom

...Like the mosques, Saudi schools have been the subject of scrutiny. Saudi textbooks have been laced with passages that not only extol the supremacy of Islam but also denigrate nonbelievers. An eighth-grade book states that Allah cursed Jews and Christians and turned some of them into apes and pigs. Ninth-graders learn that Judgment Day will not come "until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them." A chapter for a 10th-grade class warns Muslims against befriending non-Muslims, saying, "It is compulsory for the Muslims to be loyal to each other and to consider the infidels their enemy."

...What kinds of changes are the Saudis making? Education Minister Mohammed al-Rasheed told Time that the government had scratched the entire fifth chapter of a 10th-grade text that described how Muslims and non-believers were historical enemies. An excerpt detailing "ways to show hatred to the infidel" charges that "it is forbidden to show happiness during the holidays of the infidels." The minister noted that three Koranic messages encouraging tolerance would be included in Saudi texts. One of them says, "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith nor to drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loveth those who are just."

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Sween
Please can someone please explain to me what the big deal with Bin Lardin is please? Im sorry its been 2 years now so a few of his supporters highjacked a couple of plance and flew them into the world trades centres. No offence but its hardly the most amazing act ever is it?

It was the most devastating act of terrorism the world has ever seen. If you don't stop the terrorists, other major attacks are sure to follow at some point. Therefore, you hunt down bin Laden. If a little kid came up and kicked you in the shins as hard as he could and then ran away, it would hurt, right? You wouldn't just say "Oh well, that hurt. If I don't mess with the kid, he won't hurt me anymore" would you? More than likely, you'd go after him and make sure that it didn't happen again.

This is the opinion of many people in other countries yes the 9/11 attacks were bad but you have made a big deal out of them its probably because as a nation you have not been touched by major war on your own soil for a long time.

So if someone attacked your country, killing thousands of innocent civilians, you don't think your government would want to track them down? I think they would.

But i think a reality check is in order to go comparing Bin lardin to Hittler is a joke. Hittler was a reconised leader of his nation! And had huge power of industy and resources.

It's not a comparison of their power, but of the attitude most people have/had toward them: If we leave them alone and let them do their own thing, they won't bother us.

Now Bin Lardin is some terrorist and has you where he wants you. In terror of him!

How are we afraid of bin Laden? We've tightened security in the US, which isn't being afraid; it's being smart. If I was afraid of someone, I wouldn't actively look for him.

Can i just ask you this one question now give me a honest answer. Why is that these people hate you and wanted to hurt you? was it because of your involvment in the middle east? was it because you stick your nose in where it not needed? well if it was dont you think youve just made things a hell of a lot harder on yourselves?

I'll get back to you on this one if JD doesn't take care of it first. I've got to go to class.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
what so a dictatorship which has invaded numerous countries and it setting about killing off an entire relgion is not your war? Yet a country which has never openly threatned you or has proven links to any terroist organisation is you war? And dont pull the Sadams a bad man out of the hat there are plenty of oppressive regimes out there and i dont see you going after them all!

They were different times then. The US was not a world power - Europe was. You cna't compare what the US does todsy with what we did then. What we do now - is a direct result of what we LEARNED during World War II. Something I guess Europe refuses to learn from.

We hadnt gotten you into any war either you chose to come and help after years of begging and millions of lives lost on our side!

We were supply you with equipment and crap. If you had listened to Chruchhill before - and gone after Hilter - you wouldn't have lost millions of lives. If Europe had listened to the US regarding the Versailles Treaty and not taken revenge on Germany - Hitler may never have gotten to power.

You in these last few weeks have really began to show yourself up JD! A poor example of your country

How is that? Becuase I don't agree with Europe's arrogant attitude and constant put downs toward the US? You have just stated how ignorant you are. I hope parliament gets bombed and destroyed - then maybe it'll wake your ass up.

[Ruinel]

There's a lot I could say but it's either already been said, or I'm too disgusted to say it right now.

Sween, do you ever watch international news at all? Do you know what happens in Israel? Do you know what happens in the middle east at all? wtf? You need to be more informed than to listen to propoganda against the US.

For the record, I never wanted to go to war with Iraq, my views have not changed. But not for the reasons you think.
I've heard the news reports, unlike some , of how Hussain murdered Curds, all the injustices against his own people, the elaborate lifestyle while his people went without under the embargo. These were not local news casts, they were respected reporters from international news teams.

All in all, I think we did the Iraqi people a favor, but at out expense. In the long run, they will only curse us for the help and aid we give them.

[Goatee]

Many of you say that the President lied about WMD in Iraq. I am curious, would you then consider these quotes lies?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

and this one...


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

[Lizra]

No, can't say that I do. I follow those lines of reasoning fairly well.

[Sister Golden Hair]

<sigh> Thanks Sheanna Another political thread that obviously can't be discussed without tempers flaring, including my own. I can't say what I'd like to say to some of you, but I will say this to all of you... This thread is closed.

When you can discuss this topic by following Entmoot posting policies, and not flame and country bash, then, and only then, will it be permitted. From now on, any threads of a political nature that are not discussed within the guidelines of this messageboard, will be closed on sight. Why does this community continue to shoot itself in the foot?

These discussion have always been welcome and always will be, when they can be discussed in an intelligent and calm fashion. Until you prove to be able to do that, this thread and all others like it WILL BE CLOSED