For those against the war...

that's the problem about all that

What now everything is a complete government conspiracy? I think most of this information could be documented on many levels.

the truth is out there

edit- and the u.s. funded and started al queda when russia inavade afgahi...now riddle me this..they have No idea where their former employees are.....LMFAO

these are people just like what any decent being would do, if someone invaded your home, raped your wife and killed ypur kids

As well the UN has put dicatators in power and clinton put the guy (who was just removed from Haiti) in office.

This government regardless of Democrat and Republican is going to give the people power who they think will fight their cause. It happens on both sides and is not just a republican thing, thats for sure.

Yeah right!

Fuck BUSH!

yeah they're both equally corrupt, at least the reb. have the nuts to up front about it

Actually "the guy" was elected by over 90% you tool, and he was removed illegally by Bush, France, and a bunch of rebels because he's too left wing for them. He was fighting for high wages in the Carrabien, the same reason Republicans always pull off coups in that region. Jean Baptiste Aristide was far from a dictator.

He still has huge support in the region, in fact the US has forced him to leave Jamaica for Africa because that was too close for comfort.

BUSH INSTALLED A MILITARY DICTATOR IN PLACE OF THE ELECTED PRESIDENT.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...and%20Aristide

Learning be good

To those of you who still support Bush, how are you going to feel when Osama Bin Laden kills another 3000 people, or more?

What if he nukes a city?

What they walk into schools and kill 5000 children?

What then?

Are you going to wake up and realize that when Bush says he doesn't care about Bin Laden, he is the absolute most incompotent President in history? Was their a chance that Saddam was going to do any of those things?

Read the new book by that annonymous CIA agent, Bush is only putting you and I in more danger ever day.

First off I never said Aristide was a dictator I simply said that the UN has put dictators into office and Clinton put Aristide into office.

Now, the election could mean absolutely nothing, shit even Saddam had an election in Iraq and his name was the only one on the ballot.

Now on to some links, including some information that Aristide had henchmen that also killed innocent civilians.

http://www.wehaitians.com/aristide%2...terrorism.html

http://www.wehaitians.com/waiting%20...de%20hell.html

When did you hear that Bush didnt care about Bin Laden? Are you talking about the "MEMO". I mean jesus we are fighting a different war, we took out one of Bin Ladens able bodied supporters (Saddam) and we are actively looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. No one wants 3000 peoeple to die, do you really think Kerry can get Bin Laden any faster? Please explain.

Shit, you should be on Fox.

Shit, you should REALLY be on Fox. Making stuff up is fun. Too bad the Red Cross monitored the election and said it was legitimate.

hahahahaha, yes we've all seen the first pages that come up in Google when you search for Jean Baptiste Aristide. Posting those links really makes it look like you know what you're talking about. You can thank me later for telling you his name so you could search.

One man's editorial is quite the valid news source. Especially when you have 0 idea who that guy is.

Why is it whenever someone provides you proof to counter your information its not good enough? I posted a large majority of information regarding Saddams link to Terrorism. Then I mention Aristide (yes I knew his name but didnt bother looking up the spelling before the first post) and I provide you information that the man was known for killing Haitians its still not good enough for you.

Does it matter where I get the information from? Does my information become less valid if its the #1 result on google? I guess if thats true many of us in the porn industry wouldn't make any sales being in the #1 slot on google for a search term.


Funny how you are interestingly silent on the Saddam links to Terrorism.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02



"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)


When more American's die it will be the fault of the incompetent President and his blind apologists, period. His obsession with making his father and their friends richer in Iraq while ignoring Bin Laden has almost guaranteed another devastating attack on the his own people.

And what does he do? Warns you about it every day so you'll be too scared to question him.

Seems to me Clinton let Osama Bin Laden slip through his fingers as well. 9/11 sure as hell wouldnt have happened if Clinton had the balls to get Bin Laden instead of worrying about tea bagging interns.

Saddam Hussein openly sponsored...

Saddam was a big sponcer

bahhhh

You're information is not good enough because you're getting it from a US influenced editorial page that I've read a long time about. I know all about the militant rebels and their claims, thank you. When you back comments up with more than rhetoric, people may start taking you seriously.

Does it matter where you get your information from? Yes, especially when it's wrong.

Based on your comments in this thread, I'd speculate that I've probably read more about Haiti then you've actually read about everything combined in your life, Fox and CNN tickers not included. Smart people find out all the information they can about something and then form and opinion, morons search google for the first biased editorial they can find that agrees with them and then talk about it like it somehow makes them right. You have no clue about Haiti, and you're proving it more with every post. I visit the Dominican and Cuba each once a year, and I've been reading about the culture and politics of the region for years. Do you have any idea who Yves Isidor is? You probably should have at least SOME idea before you start taking his word as fact on world issues.


Has anyone every doubted that Iraq has support terrorism in the past? You're posting shit most people have known for years. The questions are a) the lies about his connection to Osama, and b) the lies about WMD. Iraq was invaded because it was an imminent threat, remember? Not some vague terrorist sponsoring state.

If you're going to invade every country that has sponsored terrorism over the years, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then 1 a year. Start with yourselves, after all Reagan funded and trained Bin Laden. The Spanish people really owe you one for that.

Above all other problems, the out of control Deficit is one of the main problems with the administration

Are you actually going to rushlimbaugh.com for this shit before you post it?

Neither Bill Clinton nor John Kerry would give up on Bin Laden after 9/11. As every informed person knows, Clinton was obsessed with Al Queda and tried to warn Bush about it. Warnings which he subsequently ignored, favoring discussion on Missile defense and how to divide up Iraq between the oil companies.

Clinton ordered the CIA to kill Bin Laden 3 times after the USS Cole, 3 times they failed. This was all revealed in the 9/11 hearings, try to pay better attention.

in a way... i hope bush does make it another 4 years... I wanna see how you all feel (that support him) after he shuts all you down.

It would be unreal for the Canadian porn business, that's for sure.

YAWN

Granted I don't know much about Haiti but you know 0 about me, my education level or my reading habits so the rest is just your opinion which you are entitled to.

How do you know the information posted on those sites are false? Can you prove the opposite or is it just your opinion. First off I read a lot about many different issues around the globe, granted I dont lead alot about Haiti but of course you picked the Haiti stuff out of this entire thread, thats cool, good for you.

So because Saddam was a sponsor of Terrorism but not Al Qaeda it still doesnt make our invasion substantial. There are conflicting reports that say Saddam was sponsoring Al-Qaeda. Your or I don't know the truth of that yet, nor will be ever know the real truth. So much shit happens in this and other countries that we all do not know about.

Reagan may have sponsored Bin Laden but our past president let Bin Laden go as well this is not just a bush issue.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

I wont even debate you on Haiti as I dont know enough about it to debate you properly on it, and I am man enough to admit that , but that was also not the point of my thread. It was to point out that Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq is justified.

maybe... but if they start regulating the internet and satalite like they do tv and radio... you may lose a lot of your american customers.

or... nothing may hapen at all... you just never know.

but we all know where the idot stands... so why take a chance?

is that before or after the nuclear winter?

Maybe because we are at war? Funny how the economy is going strong as well. 12 consecutive months of growth.

Actually, after the Cole was hit Clinton's counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, urged an immediate strike on al-Qa'eda camps and Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar.

Such a strike would destroy terrorist infrastructure and with luck might kill bin Laden, Mr Clarke told senior colleagues. But he was overruled - first by the CIA and FBI, which wanted more investigation of the attack, and then by the Clinton cabinet.

how about the negative half trillion dollar defecit?

forgot about it so soon?

HEH, many of you forget that Democrats are also after porn slingers. I like many of you dont want to get shut down, and I dont agree with all Republican views. However, those of you who think that Democrats dont go after porn slingers you might want to read

http://www.webmasterjoint.com/articl...ranholm_ag.php

as well as many other articles. She went after adult webmasters who she assumed were child pornographers and shut them down without much if any proof. She is a Democrat and is now the Governer of Michigan.

Going after Child Pornorgraphy is a good thing but shutting down legitimate sites is not.

Anyhow good night all gotta go work on some stuff and enjoy the rest of my evening.

Thanks for the conversation.

Andy

again... kerry may not be any better... we will never know until he is elected... but we all seen what bush did over the last 4 years... and I really do not think the country can handle another 4 years of that man. IMO.

I am not democrat, republican, liberal, left or right... I am for the candidate that will be best of the people of this country... no matter what party they are in. That is all anyone should care about... fuck voting for someone just because they belong to the same party as you... that is bullshit.

You guys don't know shit regardless if you're for or against bush.

You're adult webmasters. Not cabinet members.

Sleep well, hopefully tomorrow you'll forget the lesson you learned in this thread and go right back to being ignorant.

You still haven't answered my question, you support Bush and have his button in your sig, do you agree with him ignoring Bin Laden?

I'll bump this thread when you idiots get attacked again and you're looking for a way to blame John Kerry.

yea but you do not have to be a cabinet member to stay well informed... listen to ALL points of view... not just one side. then form your opinion.

pre-war article: http://wwwc.house.gov/kaptur/default.asp?contentID=745

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I should make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons," said Winston Churchill in July 1941 explaining why he was willing to make an alliance with Stalin now that Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union. "The interests of Muslims and socialists converge in the fight against the Crusaders," said Osama bin Laden in a taped speech broadcast on al-Jazeera on Tuesday, urging good Muslims to fight the American invaders of Iraq despite the "ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq."

And why shouldn't the al-Qaida leader try on Churchill's mantle? Everybody else is doing it, from British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who regularly quotes Churchill on "appeasement") to President Bush (who has Churchill's picture on the wall in the Oval Office) to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who seems to think he is the reincarnation of the Great Man). True, comparing Osama bin Laden to Winston Churchill is not an everyday activity, but in this case the analogy is exact.

Bin Laden despises the socialist dictator Saddam Hussein but wants to see American troops mired in Iraq, just as Churchill loathed the Communist dictator Joseph Stalin but longed to see German troops bogged down in the Soviet Union. The objective is to win the wider war, and if your enemy can be diverted into doing something stupid like invading Iraq (or the Soviet Union, in Churchill's case), that is all to the good. Bin Laden has been condemning Saddam 's godless socialist regime for years, calling Saddam an "infidel" and advocating his overthrow, but if the United States wants to wade into Iraq and kill lots of Muslims, by all means let it do so. That would kill two birds with a single stone.

Saddam and his sons will be killed and the secular Baathist regime in Iraq destroyed, which certainly serves al-Qaida's long-term goal of establishing Islamist government similar to that of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan in every Arab state. The Baathist regimes of Syria and Iraq are the Islamists' most serious opposition in the Arab world, as they still retain some remnant of their original socialist and Arab nationalist credentials. And meanwhile the United States will be killing lots of innocent Arab Muslims in Iraq -- the more the better, from bin Laden's point of view, because every Arab victim should bring in dozens of new recruits for al-Qaida and its fellow Islamist movements in the Arab countries.

That has been bin Laden's strategy from the start. The Islamist movements have been unable to persuade enough Arabs to join them in overthrowing the existing secular Arab governments despite 20 years of terrorism in the Arab countries, so al-Qaida was created to enlist the unwitting support of the "far enemy" (the West) in the struggle. If the United States could be tricked into committing mayhem in the Arab world, that might finally drive enough Arabs into the Islamist camp to get their long-stalled revolutions off the ground.

That was what the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were intended to produce: an indiscriminate, massive American retaliation against targets linked with the Islamists throughout the Arab world that would create huge "collateral damage" in the form of innocent Arab deaths. Bin Laden had reason to hope for such a response because that was what President Clinton had done, although on a much smaller scale, after al-Qaida killed 24 Americans in the attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. Surely killing many thousands of Americans on home ground would make the U.S. government go berserk and do the same thing again, but on a far greater scale.

The Bush administration did not walk into that trap, and instead focused its attention, quite sensibly, on dismantling al-Qaida's bases in Afghanistan. It was 19 Arabs who hijacked those four airliners on Sept. 11, but no Arab country has been attacked by the United States from that day to this. Now, however, Bush has created a similar trap for himself by targeting Iraq -- and he is about to walk into it. Bin Laden is delighted, and is naturally urging all Muslims to resist: the more Arab casualties, the better, from his point of view.

What is stunning is the smug ignorance of the "senior White House official" who told CNN that the tape shows "a terrorist making common cause with a brutal dictator . . . it demonstrates a burgeoning alliance of terror. This confirms that bad guys swim with the other bad guys. They live in the same pool."

Can senior White House officials really be so ill-informed about bin Laden's goals and strategy, or do they just assume that the U.S. public hasn't got a clue? And if they do understand what bin Laden is up to, why are they planning to do what he wants anyway?

We are way past sensible argument here, so perhaps we should just end with the latest joke making the rounds:

Q: Mr. President, why are you so certain that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons?
A: We kept the receipts.

Don't think Bush or the CIA wanted him dead either. This is months before 9/11

"July 4-14, 2001 - Osama bin Laden receives treatments for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and meets with a CIA official who returns to CIA headquarters on July 15th. [Source: Le Figaro, October 31st, 2001.] "


http://www.rense.com/general16/bin.htm
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/lucy.html

If this all was good and necessary there would be no need to justify it since the first day.

solid rebills

don't get Rich too riled up, he blow himself up

The United States of America openly sponsored the al qaida , bin ladin, saddam hussein and and and...

I openly supported John Wayne Gacey as a clown, but then he went loony and killed everyone, so I no longer supported him.

I didnt want to quote the whole thing hoping that people will read through it.. but very well written and good insight

Were you giving him weapons and training him to rape and kill kids?

No, I gave him a squeeky nose and some big fucking shoes you moron

Ok, because Reagan armed Bin Laden and trained him to fight a holy war, and to train others. Small difference.

You could go further and say that if it were good and necessary, we could be given the real reasons and the real objectives: it would not be necessary to feed us a load of emotive bullshit.

This is a democratic republic in which our politicians are our representatives and have no mandate to act without our approval. That approval is meaningless if it is gained only by feeding us with disinformation.

That they choose to do so suggests they know they would not get public approval if they told the full and unadorned truth. It is also an indication of the contempt US politicians (the current administration is not alone in this) feel for their electorate. Perhaps that contempt is deserved: most of us make little or no effort to be informed and many play no part whatever in the democratic process. But that does not give politicians a green light to abuse that process.

Indeed. Everyone seems to forget.