Politically Incorrect views on 9/11

Originally posted by mm
when i watched the events that morning of 9/11

a single reported DID announce that the flight over shanksville was shot down, and that was the last thing she said

they quickly cut to another reporter and the incident was never mentioned again

conspiracy does exist whether you want to acknowledge it or not

the US govt would LOVE to get those id trackers in us, but if it wasnt for relisgious implication, they would do it

i have never considered myself a true american
one would have to love his country and govt without doubt to be one of those

i love my country just like any citizen i guess, but i hate my govt and will denounce and fight them every step of the way

i\'d rather classify myself as an earthling

I don\'t see what the big deal is about whether it crashed or was shot down?  Either way it had to come down or it would have hit the Capitol.  I heard it reported at first that it was shot down then it was changed to a crash.  Either way the people on board DID try and retake the plane.  That is a undisputable.

Giga - Do you really think the US wants to attack Iraq over a nuclear weapon? Of all the hostile countries that are stockpiling weapons and could get nuclear weapons we want to attack Iraq? Were they not stockpiling weapons a year ago? Did they just start during the "War on terror" to make it convenient for us? Why is it SO important now? Thats what I don\'t understand and why is it only important to the US to attack Iraq?

Originally posted by Samwise
That depends... if he\'s just gonna nuke some useless place (like Australia) then it\'d be ok to wait and THEN attack him.*

*Don\'t get a hissy fit Racer, I was merely joking

Heh I would prefer France... but too much fallout in the rest of Europe...

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Either way the people on board DID try and retake the plane.  That is a undisputable.

How is that indisputable?

Originally posted by Gohan
^^^Do you really think the US wants to attack Iraq over a nuclear weapon? Of all the hostile countries that are stockpiling weapons and could get nuclear weapons we want to attack Iraq? Were they not stockpiling weapons a year ago? Did they just start during the "War on terror" to make it convenient for us? Why is it SO important now? Thats what I don\'t understand and why is it only important to the US to attack Iraq?

Hussein is madman - I doubt anyone can dispute this.  He has used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own countrymen.  What is to stop him from setting off a nuke in the west?  The reason for attacking now is to stop him from completing his goal of acquiring a nuke.  He is close - how close I do not know.  Just imagine if a western city (US or Europe) was hit with a nuclear weapon.  I would bet everyone on this board would be saying "We should have attacked Iraq".  I think the main reason for an attack now is to prevent a possible event in the future.  Did anyone think the Germans would have started another World War 25 years after being defeated in the first one?  Chamberlain didn\'t...

Originally posted by Gohan
How is that indisputable?

You just didn\'t ask that did you?  Flight recorders - cell phone calls.  Are you saying the CIA or some organization doctored those as well?  Please...

Well.... it\'s known that Saddam has been trying to make nuclear bombs forever (decades at least). So yeah, you have to wonder why it\'s so important to go to war NOW...

...either way it would of course be nice to stop his mass destruction weapons (but nobody should fool themselves into thinking this is in anyway a new problem).

Originally posted by Samwise
Well.... it\'s known that Saddam has been trying to make nuclear bombs forever (decades at least). So yeah, you have to wonder why it\'s so important to go to war NOW...

...either way it would of course be nice to stop his mass destruction weapons (but nobody should fool themselves into thinking this is in anyway a new problem).

Exactly!  It isn\'t a new problem, that is why I think we stopped short in Desert Storm.

The thing that bothers me about this though, look how many others have ICBM\'s and WOMD. Bush is jumping to attack them, not yet anyway. Most of the countries that do have them "seem" to be lead by sensible leaders, but even still. Look at India and Pakistan, neither leader is all that stable, look how close they have come to using nukes on each other. If they did, that would certainly drag other countries in and sooner or later WWIII erupts.

My question is when do we stop attacking people that pose a "threat" That could technically be any country on any given day.

As for takin Saddam himself out, Id much rather have him in their. At least we know what to expect from him for the most part. Its his kids I am worried about who would more than likely take over in the event of his fathers death. They say his kids are 3 times as evil as dear old dad.

Originally posted by luckee
The thing that bothers me about this though, look how many others have ICBM\'s and WOMD. Bush is jumping to attack them, not yet anyway. Most of the countries that do have them "seem" to be lead by sensible leaders, but even still. Look at India and Pakistan, neither leader is all that stable, look how close they have come to using nukes on each other. If they did, that would certainly drag other countries in and sooner or later WWIII erupts.

My question is when do we stop attacking people that pose a "threat" That could technically be any country on any given day.

As for takin Saddam himself out, Id much rather have him in their. At least we know what to expect from him for the most part. Its his kids I am worried about who would more than likely take over in the event of his fathers death. They say his kids are 3 times as evil as dear old dad.

You are right about his kids.  The two sons are even worse.  The oldest is a complete nut job who survived an assasination attempt (I think by his younger brother), but the younger one is more subtle and is in line to succeed him - he is much more dangerous due to his calm demeanor.

I don\'t think we should go to war with Iraq. Not at THIS moment anyhow. I agree that we should have taken care of all this buisness the first time around instead of pullin our asses out and leaving our arab "allies" with their asses hanging in the wind, which is causing quite a bit of the reluctance and distrust of the US now.

Anyhow, he does need to be removed. No doubt about that. There should be two conditions to this. 1.

We must have UN support. Going it alone will jus piss off our allies and strain our already tense forigen policies even more.. perhaps to the breaking point. We\'re already seen as a bunch of "Might makes Right" bullies.. and that\'s going to bite us in the ass one of these days when we really need forigen help. I mean, simple fact, we\'re no longer the super-industrial nation we were durring WWII. We\'re more of a Information/Service based economy who outsources all their industry to other countries like China or Mexico. What if they decide to close their borders and not do buisness with us.. or limit their trade because they\'re afraid of a destabalized MiddleEast which will restrict their Oil inports?

2. We can\'t charge in with our battle trumpets blaring. If we do anything, it\'ll have to be a sudden and swift attack to take out his Bio/Chem weapon facilities. Otherwise, we could be in real trouble. He already knows he\'s outmatched. His army is only a small fraction of what it used to be, while our military has grown exponecially in both size and effectiveness. He knows he\'s going to loose his weapons if he gets attacked. Well, we already know he\'s nuts enough to use them. It wouldn\'t be much to just "Flush" his entire stockpile out to various terrorist groups who are "supposedly" in Iraq right now. Use em or loose em.. and despite all the post 9/11 re-organizing we\'re not bulletproof here. What if someone sneaks in and detonates a crude bomb laced with VX in the middle of TimesSquare or other major metropolitan city?

It\'s just a bad - BAD- idea right now. At least with UN support we could mislead them into thinking an attack was inpending but still a ways off... then hit em.. HARD.. with the support of several nations militaries backing us up so that we make sure we\'ve got most or all of them in one massive simutanious attack. Not to mention they\'ll have a much harder time smuggling them out of the middle-east if our European and Pacific allies are on full alert for us.