Bush supported Taliban in May 2001
 

All these people talking about Iraq supporting terrorists better look in your own back yard. The Bush admin gave the Taliban
$43 million in May of 2001


http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm

If you don't mind , since most people here have a hard time reading, mainly if they do not like the topic, I will post the beginning of the artiicle. So maybe they will see a few words and be this much more informed. :thumbsup

quote:

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?


==== end of quote

I've been saying that for how long now?
almost 1 year!

Well fuck .
Thats some crazy shit.


Fuckin republicans always pull shit like that.

Yep, don't think you'll ever see this being reported on Fox News

You better watch european news channels ..... if possible, they show more from every side.

I actually think yesterday when CNN showed the video of Donald Rumsfeld giving Sadam hussein a present back in 1983 smiling with him shaking his hand and etc...


I really think CNN must have aired that by mistake, but wolf blitzard the host of the show was speechless after they showed it and he kept on looking at the producer as if saying

" What the hell do I say about that" ?


I cracked up. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by theking


Reasons for war.

#1. Iraq was defeated on the field of battle and signed certain terms. Iraq has been in violation of those terms since they signed the terms in '91. The USA has demanded that those terms be complied with and that Iraq remain a defeated country.

#2. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President.

#3. Iraq has fired upon, almost daily, for almost 11 years, USA military forces.

#4. Iraq is believed to have, or are acquiring, or are attempting to acquire WMD's. The USA will not allow that.

#5. Iraq has, on multiple occassions called for Americans, to be killed where ever they are found. Thus they are a sworn enemy of the USA.

#6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions.

#7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies.

#8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next.

Any one of the reasons above is a reason for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theking


Proof of WMD's

During the first round of inspections after after the first gulf war, Iraq admitted that they had x number of tons/liters etc. of different types of chemical and different types of biological materials on hand as well as x number of chemical rockets/artillary rounds. The first round of inspections over saw the destruction of much of this material and weapons, but they were not allowed to finish the job. Iraq has now said that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remaining weapons and materials since 1998. They do not have the documentation to prove this and said that they destroyed the documentation when they destroyed the materials and weapons. Even if it were true that they destroyed the documentation of the destruction of the materials and weapons there would still be the physical evidence of the destruction of the these materials and weapons, which they have failed to present evidence of. There would also be those scientists and engineers etc. that would have been involved in the destruction of these materials and Iraq has failed to present these people that would have been involved in the destruction of the materials and weapons. Bottom line is they had chemical and biological materials and weapons, admitted that they had them, the first round of inpsections oversaw the destruction of much of the materials and weapons, but they were kicked out before the remaining materials and weapons were destroyed, and Iraq has yet to present one iota of proof that they in fact took it upon themselves to destroy the remaining chemical and biological materials and weapons, thus without proof that they did in fact destroy them (which is their burden as imposed in the last UN resolution) we the US and anyone with an ounce of brains must assume that they still have them, and may have even produced more of them since 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theking


Some reasons why we may not be presenting clear cut proof to the UN, our "allies" and the world public.

I of course do not know what crystal clear proof may or may not exist such as photographs, but I do know that if we have black and white proof and presented that proof (even in secret to "allies") that information would have a good chance of being leaked and what are now targets would be dispersed and hidden so the opportunity to take them out will have been lost and as a result they could be used against our forces.

It has been reported that our CIA and military have outlined more than 700 targets to be hit, many of which are suspected, if not factually known to store chemical, biological materials or weapons. If we began to present this target list to the UN or to the world public or even to some of our "allies" those targets would not exist when it came time to attack them as they would have been cleaned of whatever they may now contain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theking


We are not going it alone.

The President does not act in a vacuum and cannot act without the backing of the American people, which he has, the backing of congress, which he has (they gave him the thumbs up on Iraq several months ago), the backing of his cabinet, which he has, the backing of the justice department and the courts (the President cannot violate the constitution or the law), which he has, and at this point in time he has the backing of the UN Security Counsel (15-0). Nine countries at this point in time are committing troops, twenty-two other countries are offering other types of support. There will be more come on board before all is said and done. If I remember correctly there were only 38 countries that either committed troops and/or other types of support in the first gulf war. At this point in time we have the committment of 31 countries and counting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this has to do with Bush giving money to the taliban how??

That is old news. It is common knowledge to those that pay attention that the USA provided aide to Afganistan for years and if I recall correctly the last monies given to them was actually in October following 9/11.

And investors backed Worldcom and Enron until 2002. Your point?

So you're comparing lost pension funds to lost lives?

Republicans have a bad habit of doing that

Yes people unfortunately the best source of unbiased news is not CNN, MSNBC or FOX. Not saying other countries news agencies aren't biased but they do report a bit more than what we are spoon fed by the big 3 news channels.They do paint a better picture now its up to you whether you wan't to believe it or not.
I kinda like the "Things that make you go hmmm!!" journalism.:2 cents:

Once again your attempt to twist facts is feeble at best. Yes, the US provided aid to Afghanistan after 9/11...to FIGHT the taliban, not give money to the taliban.

Do most people believe the bullshit you spread around?

WHEN oh WHEN will they start LISTENING TO YOU MATE?!

I feel your pain :(

- Adbulla Abdulla

Wrong asshole. We sent the aide package to the Taliban in October that was already in the pipeline. Pay attention, if you can. We supplied aide to the Taliban (Afganistan) for years. I repeat this is old news.

The USA fiancially supports many repressive totalitarianist regimes around the world. Always has, always will. It's money, oil and power, not people's freedom that concerns the US.

OH Well.... Tough shit huh?

Little too late to worry about that silly crap now isn't it? - It's called politics - you should try to gain an understanding of how it works.

Now - on with the war.

most people ignore him

literally

I've got him on ignore

makes it much easier to enjoy this forum :)

Actually I'm trying to gain an understanding how dumbfucks like you work so I can make sure never to become one.

Oh Well.......


TOO LATE !!!

So naive to expect honesty from a politician. They change their views to suit what will keep them on the gravy train.

Carnegie supplied Hitler with Steel
US ignored Pol Pot
US supplied arms to the Contra in S. America
US supplied arms to Iraq

We know politicians have low morals and we are surprised when they do something like this. No wonder they keep getting elected.

I'm not looking for a saint, just an honest man. :helpme

I'm saying that sometimes you give money because you think it's a good idea, and then in comes back to fuck you.

And us Canadians have a tough time being republicans.