REUTERS Reuters North American News Service Sep 10, 2008 08:28 EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday. The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.
1999 was when international sanctions were suspended. And the subsequent negotiations were championed by the French. Iraq has been a catastrophe -- 23 US dead last month in the ongoing quagvictory. Somewhere between one to three trillion in costs. "General Petraeus, the outgoing commander of US forces in Iraq, says he will probably never declare victory there." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7610684.stm Iran, meanwhile, is far away from laying down its arms as you claim. In fact, your claim is so far from the truth that it really defies reality and truth and kind of makes me wonder if you're trapped in a reality of your own making in your own head. 20 hours ago Israel was reported as asking for bunker busters and an air corridor to attack Iran in the face of "fresh evidence" that Iran is working on its weapons. Meanwhile, Russia is refusing sanctions against Iran and is basically telling the US to go fuck itself with a screwdriver. How you can interpret any of this as a great Republican victory is truly astonishing to me.
Decent points. However my original point wasnt about terrorism in the world, or world relations, or politics. Nothing anywhere near the likes of sept 11 has repeated itself here on US soil. Thats all.
Is Saddam alive? Case closed. Is North Korea building nukes? Case closed. Is Iran building nukes according to the CIA report? Case closed. Did Libya not wait until 2003 to formally renounce their weapons program? Case closed.
Ahh the "no TRUE Scotsman" defense. "Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman "There haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11" "Wha...? Here are half a dozen examples, and there's others, terrorism increased massively under the Republicans." "Well, there haven't been any REALLY BIG terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11."
Wow, with an argument like "case closed" nobody can argue with you. Another sure fire all purpose winner is "enough said." Here's what happening in actual reality: "the [North Korean] government yesterday announced it had suspended the dismantling of its nuclear program. The Foreign Ministry said it was responding to U.S. delays in removing it from a list of "terror-sponsoring" states." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b7eec2ec-f1c9-44c3-b1b1-6d937f52e152
In regards to your reply to me, you are going off topic. There has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil since september 11th. The fact that you won't concede that simple point tells me you, like it seems everyone else these days, are looking for facts to back your opinion, rather than basing your opinion on the facts. You can choose A or B (from my first post). You have to concede Bush that point. Why does it burn you so much? It doesnt mean he was right in everything he did. Believe it or not the world isnt so easily put into the categories of right and wring, good and bad. You seem like a smart guy, don't do what everyone else does and let your biases rule your perception. A victory? No. Like I said before it, to me, is not so cut and dry. Its not winning or losing or right and wrong.Consider this: You admit that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Think about that: Nuclear weapons in the middle east. Not only will it make nukes far more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists, but it will start and arms race in the middle east. If iran has them then saudi arabia is going to want them. Nuclear weapons in the most unstable region of the world is bad for the world, but especially bad for the US. What happens if iran nukes or threatens to nuke saudi arabia? Not only are we going to war, but what happens to energy prices here? I've said it before and I will say it again: for whatever reason(s) I believe the day will come when our country is very glad of our military presence in the middle east. I believe the stakes will soon rise dramatically. A victory? No. But thats because the battle has yet to begin.
No major terrorist attack on US soil. Ok, maybe. But trumpeting Bush was right with his "fight them over there" policy, (not an outrageous idea, in the circumstances) when it was Bin Ladens stated aim to draw the US into a middle eastern blood-sandpit, bleeding the country dry economically, seems to be exactly what he was after. To say Bush was right, is saying, the way i figure, Bin Laden was right!? And a superior strategist, to boot?
"Nuclear envoys from South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia met in Beijing on September 5 and 6. But the prospects for the six-party talks aimed at denuclearising North Korea were set back by more evidence of a possible reversal of disabling activities at Yongbyon nuclear facility." "Such recent developments are a case of deja vu. North Korea announced that it would withdraw from the NPT in 1993, objecting to the IAEAâs call for special inspections. It was only after negotiations with the US that North Korea suspended its demand for NPT withdrawal, a day before its implementation. The episode ended with the signing of the Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea in October 1994." "However, that agreement broke down in 2002, when the US, claiming that North Korean officials had admitted to having a highly enriched uranium programme, suspended heavy oil shipments. Pyongyang responded by reopening its nuclear facilities and expelling IAEA monitors. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT on January 2003. The current six-party process was initiated in 2003 in another effort to end North Koreaâs nuclear weapons programme." http://www.mysinchew.com/node/16172 It appears that Conservatives haven't gotten over their strange predilection for premature "Mission Accomplished" statements.
Were they building nukes before Bush took office? With regards to Iran's 'nucular' program - can Pa(b)st Prime, or anyone else, accurately declare "case closed"? http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLB71196220080912 Didn't think so.