Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[lunch3]

1. Saudis should be next? Thats like saying go bomb Canada, some people in Canada dont like Americans, kill them all.

2. If Saudis hate America so much, why oh why do they let Americans have bases on their land? Why do a great number of "better" off Saudis leave their country to study in America? Why do more than 50% of Saudis drive Cadillacs?

3. If they were so damned anti-american theyd all be going to Jihad School and be driving around in Jihad Mobiles. Just because a small percent of extremists reside in Saudi, it doesnt mean they are all fanatics.

4. Furthermore, "easy" targets militarily? you have no clue.
If the USA were to invade Saudi, each and every Arab state would aid their brethren.

5. Iraq would be nothing compared to the kind of resistance the USA would face if they invaded Saudi.

6. if the us were to go after another "country" it should definately be North-Korea, possibly Pakistan.

Ok gonna respond to each mini paragraph respectively:

1. It's not the same thing, 16 out of 18 hijackers, or something like those numbers I forgot, were Saudi's.

2. Above in 1. partly answers. Also WE DON'T have bases ANYMORE in Saudi Arabia because the Saudi's asked us to leave. Maybe because they are afraid we almost have reason to invade them. This happened like half a year ago, we may still have a few hundred troops in Saudi Arabia now though. Our troops were only there after Gulf War to be counter-measures if Iraq decided to invade Saudi Arabia. Plus I was talking of Saudi's citizens, although they aren't citizens. Saudi Arabia is ruled "absolutely" by a ruling family. This ruling family has FUNDED/FOUNDED/RUN several schools where they teach their citizens to hate the US. This ruling family treats Saudi Arabia like it was their "private property" with their citizens considered "tenants".
They got away with it because we have always had leaders in US that cared more about politics and not morality. We want their oil and the government does cooperate with war on terror now, but they were big part in creating terror against the US with these schools. Osama Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia, and got his huge wealth working for and from Saudi's oil. He was exiled a little bit before 9/11 when the US pressed them heavily after the Cole Destroyer incident.

3. I'm not saying most of Saudi's are terrorists, very far from truth. What I'm saying is that the government was big part in anti-US terror to begin with, still funds these schools, but they cracked down on terrorists within their own country only after the terrorists attacked Saudi Arabia within. That is because although they are breeding anti-US feelings, many Saudi's, including terrorists, hate their government. Before terrorists hit their country all that the Saudi government did in war on terror was close some terrorist financial accounts to please the US. The government got away with what they did, and IMO should be invaded, occupied, and reconstructed into a government somehow ruled by it's people and not the royalty.

4. Militarily very easy, even Israel was able to defend itself AND win in short amount of time against 6 invading Arab nations. The saudi civilians would appreciate the tearing down of the Saudi royal family, although there would be mistrust of America, and terrorists coming from outside and within Saudi Arabia to conduct guerilla war against US wherever they can. Invading Saudi Arabia right after Iraq would probably create a guerilla war twice the size of the one in Iraq now because of the image it creates of the US who now has invaded 3 ME nations in a row and therefore conspiracy theories on them wanting to control the oil.

5. Read above, also other nations from ME might help Saudi Arabia, but military threats are nothing compared to our technology. BUT if the PEOPLE of ME wage war against us, it is quite possible that the US would not be able to occupy Saudi Arabia. We can easily destroy every tank/airplane/military complex's/groups of soldiers depending on their resolve to conduct guerilla war. These military forces have little loyalty to their governments, but if the people as a whole view the US as a hostile force who means to enslave or steal their country from them, then we have major dificulties. It all depends if the people accept the occupation and how much mistrust or hatred there is between the two.

6. This is the only one I 'partly' agree with. North Korea needs to be taken care of but will be costly. The American people will have to be a lot more resolved though to conduct this war. Pakistan's government is fairly good in cooperating with US and ruling it's people respectively as a republic. But there are some radical muslim groups that might take over power there, if that happens then maybe we have to invade. But for now we need to help stabilize Pakistan's government, they sold nuclear secrets before but it seems they trully and genuinely changing that type of course and helping a great deal on war on terror.

[Mattey]

America has the right to have bases in every other country, otherwise it's cause for invasion. If some of your citizens attack us, we'll bomb your country. If you try to make weapons that we have, we'll kill your family. If you look at us funny, we'll upend your government then leave. Don't mess with Texas.

[THE ENFORCER]

.

Ok i guess it would depend of USA's subjective intent then (go for oil or go to save iraqi citizens or for world peace)? and it would of been better if the Iraqi citizens cried for help even though with Saddam i know that would be impossible. However if we were to look retrospectively because of all the Iraqi citizens welcoming USA troops we could say that Iraqi's did want our help or USA may have had special knowledge that Iraqi citizens wanted USA to help (once agian subjective intent) we dont know.

Note:i was looking at the iraq situation under the perspective of USA not Aust, but when i say that i want Bush in for Terrorism then im talking under an Aust.

Also that analogy with Nazi's justifying Hitler didnt work for me, cause i didnt think that Bush invaded Iraq for oil but for humanity (also nazis would support everything by Hitler (so they would support the means as well) we although glad that Iraqi citizens are free dont support the way USA invaded)-you need an analogy where someone doesnt like the way something is done but likes that it is done- Nazis like the way it is done as well.

I was comparing Saddam to Hitler because of the atrocities they both did to thier own citizens. Saddam and Israel analogy doesnt work since Saddam commited atrocities to his own people.
But i get what you are saying no need to go further just comment on the first paragraph...

[THE ENFORCER]

4. Militarily very easy, even Israel was able to defend itself AND win in short amount of time against 6 invading Arab nations.
But israel has G-d on their side

5. Read above, also other nations from ME might help Saudi Arabia, but military threats are nothing compared to our technology. BUT if the PEOPLE of ME wage war against us, it is quite possible that the US would not be able to occupy Saudi Arabia.
It'll take sometime for USA to gain support to invade another country, but i dont think many ME countries will wage war against USA i think they would be too afraid. Even if they did i think USA using Israel could quite easily do what they want in the ME, when it comes to invasion
6. Pakistan's government is fairly good in cooperating with US and ruling it's people respectively as a republic. But there are some radical muslim groups that might take over power there, if that happens then maybe we have to invade. But for now we need to help stabilize Pakistan's government, they sold nuclear secrets before but it seems they trully and genuinely changing that type of course and helping a great deal on war on terror.

Bit reminiscent of vietnam?

Note: if you just happen to misread my statements i am agreeing with you ok, so dont take it as an argument.

[lunch3]

Okay Enforcer, I know you weren't. But just wanted to say from your last post that one main reason Israel was able to win that war was because of American weapons. They used our aircraft, helicoptors, and I'm sure many other things developed by the US. They paid us for those things but I think we gave Israel a huge discount but am a little ignorant on that. But this is one thing that has been used by ME government's propaganda machine is that the US is helping Israel a great deal. Most Muslims in ME hate us for supporting Israel so intensely. Oh and doubt vietnam level, but anything is possible.

I finally read the whole thread and have some points I want to also express.

1. Someone said we pissed the Iraqi's in occupying and liberating them. That is not true, but they do mistrust US but glad that Saddam is gone. From many interviews and perspectives in new york times it seems Iraqis are mostly mad about America's bueracacy in not providing security and slowing down reconstruction. If anything all the terrorism in Iraq is making Iraqis enemies of terrorists. They see terrorists murder many more Iraqis than US soldiers, terrorists killed like 4-5 times as many Iraqis (mostly police officers) because they were soft targets and easier to inflict damage on. Terrorism is making things tense in Iraq and making their leaders argue with eachother to a certain degree which is what the terrorists true aim is I think. But if anything, in long run, Iraqis are hating terrorism and what it stands for and look to democracy as something that will free them and unite them in one overall voice for the people.

2. I honestly don't think Bush ever lied, I think he genuinely believed that Iraq 'could' have WMD and when Saddam impeded UN search he became sure of it in his mind. But I also believe that Bush had ulterior and maybe more of an urge to invade Iraq because he believed Saddam was evil and would do something horrible if he could and had means to do so in future and maybe even now.

3. Bush has been too gun-ho in war and therefore has isolated US. But if we get a new president I think world would repair those relations really fast. Once new president elected I think the UN would FINALLY help in reconstruction in Iraq. Everyone in world is saying US pushes immorally to do what it feels right, but most of world is using force BY NOT COOPERATING silently saying it is because they don't want to work with Bush. YOUR ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Although maybe Bush shouldn't be president again do what is right and help out instead of bickering. Bush is an idiot and arrogant, he thinks US can do the job by itself, but he is also a very honest, religious, and good guy that does things because they are right and not because of the politics.

4. Bush has used a strategy of strengthing our industry by giving the private company sector tax rebates from dividents and therefore giving people more of a reason to invest during a time when economic recess was already showing signs. I do not know if this strategy is working, but it is a good prosibility of working in long run I think. Bush must have a very smart financial staff giving good suggestions. We were also hurt A LOT economically because of 9/11, that is what speed up the decline. Tourism of course dropped like 50%, a huge amount of revenue loss, we are spending huge amount of money to provide security after 9/11, and we spent a lot of money bailing the airline industry out of bankrupcy. Our economy sucks because those outside US let terrorism win by deciding not to come to US in fear of attack and by our own people who let terrorism scare us to a degree where we needed security, which probably isn't that effective in providing security but gives our populace peace of mind to continue on with our lives. But people cannot be blamed for their human instincts and emotions.

5. But in end, A PRESIDENT DOES NOT IN ANY MAJOR WAY CONTROL THE ECONOMY. Do you think one bill giving tax breaks to companies in any major way affect the standard of living of most, the success or failure of companies, and the huge loss of jobs? Our economy is dependent on many other factors other than what the president does, plus Congress is the one that passed Bush's bill. Maybe he hasn't made enough bills or something to help economy, but if you believe this give me one specific example of a bill that most Bush haters can agree upon that WOULD help economy. You hear all these democratic politicians say they will concentrate on domestic issues, but you hardly see any specific examples.........but same is with all of US's presidents. The people who have the most weight are white house officials, they make the descriptive policies, if they are good enough the new president will probably keep them, depending on how politically oriented they are like did they promise the job to someone else that supported their campaign and other issues.

6. I do think Kerry would make good president and get world back to being friends with US. But I also think Bush did a good job, and would do better since he is actually used to the job more, well that is if he gets less stressed out with this political dance with the media. Think Kerry would be less out there in war on terror, although I'm sure he will still concentrate on it.

7. I think 9/11 was a big wakeup call to America, it seemed our 'empire' was doomed to fall like the Romans in the long term as our society becomes more worry free, feels less fulfillment in life, and becomes too arrogant. 9/11 gave us a real purpose and the whole world a purpose too. My ideal society would be for the world to unite and start exploring and colonizing space, while we learn much more about the universe and the natural world in all its sciences. And uniting against terrorism and ending it makes that ideal world come very close to a beginning where we head towards it.

PS Food for thought, if Hitler was prevented before ww2, baby boom (and therefore many of you wouldn't exist) and creation of Israeli state would not have happened. Russia and USA wouldn't have been united through the patriotism that ww2 created. Europe would not be as segregated as it is today. The anti-semitism that existed would still be locked up or a different catastrophy would have befelled them maybe. Imperialism would still be here but it probably wouldn't be worldwide, just a few colonies left. Instead of being let go by imperialist states, many colonies would have rebelled on their own, gained a national identity, and have more of an effect on world today. Both good and bad things.

[lunch3]

shit I wrote too much, promise I won't write anymore unless a rebuttal is needed, no new topics in posts. I need my lag to be free so i can go back to ss

[Mattey]

2. I honestly don't think Bush ever lied, I think he genuinely believed that Iraq 'could' have WMD and when Saddam impeded UN search he became sure of it in his mind. But I also believe that Bush had ulterior and maybe more of an urge to invade Iraq because he believed Saddam was evil and would do something horrible if he could and had means to do so in future and maybe even now.

This is the only one I felt like replying to, but on September 11th Bush was quoted as saying "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." It is no coincidence that evidence against Iraq was distorted.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar21.html

[THE ENFORCER]

Okay Enforcer, I know you weren't. But just wanted to say from your last post that one main reason Israel was able to win that war was because of American weapons. They used our aircraft, helicoptors, and I'm sure many other things developed by the US. They paid us for those things but I think we gave Israel a huge discount but am a little ignorant on that.

Still all of that was created by G-d,

But this is one thing that has been used by ME government's propaganda machine is that the US is helping Israel a great deal. Most Muslims in ME hate us for supporting Israel so intensely. Oh and doubt vietnam level, but anything is possible.

Im talking socially with the impact of vietnam (with you point agianst pakistan)

4. Bush has used a strategy of strengthing our industry by giving the private company sector tax rebates from dividents and therefore giving people more of a reason to invest during a time when economic recess was already showing signs.

In times of a recession people rarely invest!!, it was probably politically motivated (since public think Bush is doing something) but economically it doesnt make sense.

We were also hurt A LOT economically because of 9/11, that is what speed up the decline.

9/11 was a huge external shock to the economy and any president would of done the same thing that Bush has done!

5. But in end, A PRESIDENT DOES NOT IN ANY MAJOR WAY CONTROL THE ECONOMY.

Government policies can stabilise the fluctuations that is although if there is going to be a downswing then there is going to be a downswing, the magnitude of it depends on right govt policy but the right one is hard to predict because of lagging indicators and predicting what the public is going to do!

Do you think one bill giving tax breaks to companies in any major way affect the standard of living of most, the success or failure of companies, and the huge loss of jobs? Our economy is dependent on many other factors other than what the president does, plus Congress is the one that passed Bush's bill. Maybe he hasn't made enough bills or something to help economy, but if you believe this give me one specific example of a bill that most Bush haters can agree upon that WOULD help economy.

Microeconomic reform ive heard alot of democrats talk about this, decreasing the costs for Businesses to fight cost-push inflation and increase spending therefore create jobs.

Its bad when economic issues are created with a political bias thats why our Reserve bank is independent to the government in Aust but unfortunately fiscal policy will always have a political agenda to it

6. I do think Kerry would make good president and get world back to being friends with US. But I also think Bush did a good job, and would do better since he is actually used to the job more, well that is if he gets less stressed out with this political dance with the media. Think Kerry would be less out there in war on terror, although I'm sure he will still concentrate on it.

Bush did well.

7. I think 9/11 was a big wakeup call to America, it seemed our 'empire' was doomed to fall like the Romans in the long term as our society becomes more worry free, feels less fulfillment in life, and becomes too arrogant. 9/11 gave us a real purpose and the whole world a purpose too.

Our society is alot like the Romans, sporting athletes treating almost like gods, like Jay Leno asking football stars about economy and terrorism (what the hell do they know?) but people treat them like they are superior beings thats how the Romans treated their sporting athletes!

We agree on alot of things however looking back seeing how most Iraqis welcome US soldiers i think the ends did justify the means if there was a huge rebellion then there would be a problem buit clearly the people wanted swift intervention and US and Aust and UK did that!

[Nethila]

Billy Crystal> It's so different 13 years ago. Bush was president. We are tanking from economy and we just finished a war with Iraq.

[Displaced]

just a thought lunch3.

most countries in the ME are ruled by "royals", be it a King, Sheikh, Prince, Whatever. It doesnt make it a "bad" system.

Im also guessing you have never been to Saudi Arabia, most people are very Pro Saudi, this is due to the fact that their standard of living is quite high. Iraq was a different situation, there are/were a lot of extremely poor people around.

As for ME uniting in a war against the US, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest. Iraq was a given, other arab states knew about Saddam, and whe he is doing/has done. Saudi is one of the key economic states in the ME, and has no beef with any of its Arabic compatriots. As such it would definately recieve a lot of financial aid, as well as more "cannon fodder" in the form of suicide bombers. it could possibly go far enough to have other countries send actual military support.

Also, the main reason Arabs in general dislike the US (more the US government than actual American people) is due to the amount of help Israel has recieved from the US, and also the fact that most of the us is "controlled" by Jewish people.

The other reason for their animocity, is the fact that the US cannot keep its nose out of where it does not belong.
Saddam was put into power by the US, that backfired nicely.
Osama Bin Laden was trained by the US, (albiet to fight the soviets), but look how nicely that worked out.
Israel itself was "created" by the US (or the land was stripped from Palestine by the US) score 10 more points for the US.

im sure if they had let the world run its course, given the israelis some land somewhere in the pacific (or somewhere) nothing would have happened.

You may argue that the land would not be "holy" to Israelis, however look at Mecca, there are pilgrimages to Mecca from all over the world during Haj. It wouldnt be that hard for jewish people (if they so wanted to) to visit Jerusalem. it may not be the "best" option, but it would have saved a lot of lives.

(prepares to get flamed by everyone from israel or whom is jewish)

[lunch3]

This is the only one I felt like replying to, but on September 11th Bush was quoted as saying "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." It is no coincidence that evidence against Iraq was distorted.

So basically right after 9/11 Clarke says that Bush asked him to see if there was a link between the attack and Iraq, even a small link. So what, Bush thinks Saddam is very evil and is definitely, at that time, seems to be the US's worst enemy that presides in ME. We did of course mess up his invasion plans and put him under very close eye and control. What is wrong with making sure Saddam had any link to it. Say if a terrorist attack happened in India, I'm sure India's president or whatever would ask his aids "See if Pakistan had any links to this attack". Of course it does show that Bush was heading in a predetermined direction during 9/11 investigation, but that is what detectives do, they follow leads and look at motive as a major way of finding suspects. To tell truth in any investigation anything and everything gets distorted somehow because of human failures and prejudices. Putting down Bush for that is putting down 6 billion other people down for that trait. I agree though that the evidence that Bush wanted was exemplified over evidence he didn't care so much for.

But at time when Bush was arguing his case to go to war, almost every other European nation had the SAME intelligence conclusions that Bush got give or take. Europe's whole problem was that they didn't want war now, but they DID believe it was highly plausible, or at very least believable plausible, that Iraq had WMD. It is just they didn't want to go to war unless if they were sure, which never ever happens with these chances. Sadam impeded weapons search and Bush took that as meaning he is hiding the weapons. Things are never sure until they are too late. That is the way Bush thinks, he doesn't forget history.

We agree on alot of things

That is probably because we actually read the indepth stories and look at both perspectives. It seems many other people follow the tabloid headlines without actually thinking "what does this mean?", in doing so they take the news for more than it is and don't realize the stories are about actual human beings the same as them.

...and also the fact that most of the us is "controlled" by Jewish people.

There may be a greater proportion of Jewish people in power than there is in the actual population. But to think they control the US is very dumb to think. Whereas they may be like 1% in population, they maybe control 5% of politics maybe. We fight on Israel's side because they are being bombed and they have a very democratic well run country where everyone lives relatively well. Talk to some Arabs that live in Israel, they have nothing to do with jihad or terrorism because they have no reason for it. Also if you have been to Saudi Arabia, I doubt you are a westerner (unless very rich and influential) because Saudi Arabia hardly ever let's foreigners in. You probably are in the Saudi elite and everyone around has benefitted because of the oil. But most people don't and have no say at all in your government.

I agree with what support you think Saudi Arabia will receive if US invades it. I don't agree that it will make a difference unless if, like I said before, I am wrong about the Saudi people disliking their rulers.

Maybe Israel could have been found in another place, but they would see stark resistance anywhere because of anti-semitism. But the Muslim extremists have taken this to be a holy war because they believe all other faiths are found by their equivalent of Satan. All others are infidels. They don't realize they are only human like everyone else. Israel is taking up such little space and allows Arabs to live inside it side by side with Jews. I don't see the same hospitality from the ME. Although Israel is on Muslim holy land too, the HUMANE thing would be to be friends and share worship side by side.

I have heard about the Mecca pilgrimages, they are spectacular. The ME has, I think, by far the most religious people. But religion has caused wars in the past so many times. Maybe after ME loses this religious war, like we did during crusades, then your governments would be less about discipline and blind loyalty and instead be rational, fair, and under the power of the people as a whole with all voices heard.

Billy Crystal> It's so different 13 years ago. Bush was president. We are tanking from economy and we just finished a war with Iraq.

I saw that too, some night show maybe Conan O'Brian. It was funny and as a sentence true.

[Torn Wing]

What drives a person to be Homosexual?

[THE ENFORCER]

The other reason for their animocity, is the fact that the US cannot keep its nose out of where it does not belong.
Saddam was put into power by the US, that backfired nicely.
Osama Bin Laden was trained by the US, (albiet to fight the soviets), but look how nicely that worked out.
Israel itself was "created" by the US (or the land was stripped from Palestine by the US) score 10 more points for the US.
Maybe the US is the only country that tries to do good!

im sure if they had let the world run its course, given the israelis some land somewhere in the pacific (or somewhere) nothing would have happened.
Then those locals would complain!, Israelis have offered just under 40% of Israel in the past to palastiens you have to remember Israel is frickin small to any amount of land given away is significant. Why dont the surrounding arab countries give up less than 10% of thier land and i guarantee that the palastiens would have a bigger state than Israel! Even though all Israel wants is peace and wouldnt care if palastiens lived in the state of Israel as long as they didnt kill Jews! Palastiens however dont want to live side by side with Jews! Also this was straight after the holocaust, if 6 million of people from your nation were murded and you dont have a homeland yet, you would expect to get your land back to make sure it doesnt happen agian! Israel has offered help to all Jews around the world at the hands of antisemites and terrorists State of Israel is a neccessity to this world because of people like you!

You may argue that the land would not be "holy" to Israelis, however look at Mecca, there are pilgrimages to Mecca from all over the world during Haj. It wouldnt be that hard for jewish people (if they so wanted to) to visit Jerusalem. it may not be the "best" option, but it would have saved a lot of lives.

Thats only because the Koran states so, Torah doesnt state anything about making a pilgrmage. And please first of all how is allowing Jews to make a pilgrmage anywhere near the significant level of actually owning the land and second of all i doubt the palastiens would allow all Jews into thier land where as Israel allows any Jew into the state of Israel, fact is Israel has no problem sharing the land with palastiens!

(prepares to get flamed by everyone from israel or whom is jewish)

and also the fact that most of the us is "controlled" by Jewish people.
Dam right your gonna get flamed with stupid comments like this, dumb fuck up! If US was controlled by Jews, than we would use US intelligence to gun your racist ass down!


If Lunch3 didnt talk sense into you then i hope i did!

[Nethila]

just got one comment:

who/what give US the right to attack anyone he wants? "Oh we attack Iraq because they have WMD".. well, do they? "Oh we attack al Qieda because they are terrorists".. well, do you have to kill so many civiliances too?
Did Spain vow to attack Iraq or Afgan after that bombing of Marid? no.. So why does US has the right to attack someone instantly? EVEN without UN's approval?

And have you ever wondered why all these things happened while Bush is in power? Bush, like his dad, are power/war-hunger, if i may, morons.

O ya, and talk about smart. Good job to Bush for using 9/11 as his campaign ad.

[lunch3]

blah

just got one comment:

who/what give US the right to attack anyone he wants? "Oh we attack Iraq because they have WMD".. well, do they?

We thought he did, as did most of the world, and it was found that Saddam can't be trusted so he was targeted to comply or be invaded. We have right to protect ourselves, and after 9/11 preemptive strikes is suspected to be the only way we can. He could have complied with searches like Iran and Libya are. Also countries like Czechslovakia and South Africa complied much earlier and are doing just fine, but Saddam rejected that path.

"Oh we attack al Qieda because they are terrorists".. well, do you have to kill so many civiliances too?

Well say we didn't invade Afganistan. I'm sure that the number of civilians that died in the Afghan war are equivalent to the number of civilians the Taliban in their ruthless rule would have killed anyways in, at most, a year for adultery,slander, shaving beard, clan wars, etc. I've seen the videos of woman kneeling on ground and being executed because they had sex with someone other than their husband. If you want to talk about Iraq, the number of civilians that died by US forces/bombs are probably equivalent to those killed within 2 months, on average, by Saddam and his man in order to keep the fear and terror that allows them their regime to exist. If you want to talk about North Korea, probably 1,000 people are killed each month, not only those that try to escape or those that try to incite rebellion are killed but also are their families killed or sent to brainwashing camps. Countless more die of starvation because NK's army hordes all UN food sent to them.

Did Spain vow to attack Iraq or Afgan after that bombing of Marid? no.. So why does US has the right to attack someone instantly? EVEN without UN's approval?

Spain lost like 200 people, and as such pulled out of Iraq telling terrorists "see....terrorist attacks work sooner or later, attack us and we'll leave and stop war on terror". Whilest the US lost 3,000 people in a blink of an eye basically. We have right to protect ourselves. AFGHANISTAN REFUSED TO DELIVER AND DEPORT THE MASTERMIND AND FUNDER OF 9/11, so we took him by force. If you feel so badly join the bad guys and wage jihad on America.

And have you ever wondered why all these things happened while Bush is in power? Bush, like his dad, are power/war-hunger, if i may, morons.

O ya, and talk about smart. Good job to Bush for using 9/11 as his campaign ad.

That commercial had no inflamatory images, have you even seen the ad? It was valid to show how he handled the situation after 9/11. Every candidate airs commercials to show what the have done, ie their credentials, as they should, otherwise we wouldn't know. Bush is rated very high on handling terrorism, that ad was there to remind us about that. Stalin would love to spoon thread all these people that eat up headlines so easily without thinking or actually looking in depth.