Contrary to bushbull, World opinion opposed the attack on Afghanistan

[LynnTheDem]

No one ever believes me when I tell them that NO the world did NOT support our attacking and bombing the crap out of Afghanistan. And I finally found documentation!

The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack. Clear and sizeable majorities were recorded in the UK (75%) and across Western Europe from 67% in France to 87% in Switzerland. Between 64% (Czech Republic) and 83 % (Lithuania) of Eastern Europeans concurred as did varying majorities in Korea, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe. An even more emphatic answer obtained in Latin America where between 80% (Panama) and 94% (Mexico) favoured extradition. The poll also found that majorities in the US and Israel (both 56%) did not favour attacks on civilians. Yet such polls have been ignored by the media and by many of the polling companies.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Polls.asp

[LynnTheDem]

1. I should say...

I finally found the damn poll I had and lost & couldn't find again until now, lol!

I am so VINDICATED! bwaaahahahahahaha! :D

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. And I finally found documentation!

Extraditing suspects would make little money for shrub's cronies.

Making war on another nation, responsible for 911 or not... is highly profitable for shrub's cronies.

Making war on the right nations... would provide U.S. control over strategery <pun intended> oil reserves.

If he has to choose.... he will be told to choose the latter two. <sarcasm intended>

Then.... afterwards... the whole globe can become a battlefield. How cool is that.

[still_one]

3. The real issue is Iraq

There was no justification real justification for the war in Iraq

In Afghanistan, the taliban were protecting osama bin laden and his followers.

The problem we made in Afghanistan is we delegated everything to the Northern Alliance, and the war lords. That is one of the main reasons why mullah omar and bin laden escaped. Tora Bora

We had to go into Afghanistan, and the taliban would not let us. Only alternative was force, but our intelligence was crap, and we didn't use the force wisely...

[noonwitch]

6. I agree that we had to go to Afganistan

The Taliban had to go. I was hoping in the late 90s that the UN would intervene, because of the treatment of women and human rights' issues, but it didn't happen.
They were protecting al Queda and wouldn't turn them over. I wasn't really thrilled with the idea of carpet bombing a poor, third world city like Kabul, but once they chased OBL and friends down to the mountain caves, I had no problem with the US bombing the daylights out of their hidaway.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Not true, actually

The Taleban were not protecting OBL and Co. The Taleban offered to extradite OBL and Co for public trials if bush would supply proof of their involvement in 911.

The USA does the same thing. If Canada demanded the US hand you over to them for murders, the US would demand to see proof of your guilt before they'd hand you over to Canada. Or to anyone else.

Bush refused to show any proof...anyone else seen that promised white paper on OBL and 911 yet? Me either.

As always, it was America who financed and trained al Qaeda, including OBL and used them until we decided to drop them. Just more of that blowback.

The reason OBL & Co escaped is because bush sent some 30,000 troops.

Isn't it interesting how he sends 30,000 to Afghanistan and 160,000 to Iraq who had nothing to do with 911 or al Qaeda?

Anyhoo all bush had to do was show some proof and the Taleban would have handed OBL over. ANd that is why the world opposed attacking them.

[htuttle]

10. Don't forget that the Taliban offered us bin Laden 3 times after 9/11

All three times, they presented their opening negotiating position as 'show us some evidence that proves he did it, and we will deliver him to you or a neutral third country'.

The Bush administration refused to even start negotiations, since 'they don't negotiate with terrorists'....(unless they want to trade some arms for hostages, of course).

While it's easy to 'poo-poo' the idea that the Taliban would turn over bin Laden, the administration didn't even TRY to negotiate with them (other than about the pipeline the year before 9/11). Could they have gotten bin Laden by now, and NOT destroyed Afghanistan again? Nobody knows, since they didn't try.

Not that I'd be terribly happy if the Taliban were still in power, but given the way things are going in Afghanistan, they stand a good chance of regaining power over there anyway.

RAWA has been very clear that the 'Northern Alliance' warlords are as bad as the Taliban from their point of view, so it doesn't sound like we did the people of Afghanistan a favor by invading. Quite the contrary.

[LynnTheDem]

13. Exactly!

And let's not forget that little gift of $43 million bush gave the Taleban in August 2001 for doing so well on their "war on drugs".

Now we got a historic record opium crop in 2003 and it's going to break that record this year...we got the Taleban back which is fine coz bush's president says he wants them back anyways...and we got the warlords and their militia who are all big time drug merchants and now bush wants our handful of troops over there to fight the warlords.

Drugs...warlords...can we say bloodbath???

Afghanistan is WORSE NOW than ever, the UN is pulling out, Doctors w/out Borders already pulled out & they don't ever pull out unless it's very dire. Afghani women are totally screwed. Crime is way up and new to Afghanistan, as it was new to Iraq, is terrorism.

The UK report just out warns that Iraq & Afghanistan are dangerously unstable and fast becoming totally failed states.

3 years later and we're still at war and still dying and still killing & the security situation is getting worse.

[denverguy]

4. that may be perfectly true,

but at the time (and probably still) the reaction of the majority of US citizens would have been along the lines of "Yeah? Good to know. Bombs away."

would not have changed to actions taken

[still_one]

5. It must be remembered we were attacked by a group

that was protected by the Taliban. This attack was on our homeland. We had no choice. Incidently, no matter what the polls said, the UN supported us almost 100% in Afganistan...

[Bridget Burke]

11. How many of the 9/11 attackers were Afghans?

How long had they trained in Afghanistan? How many of the Taliban were in on the planning for the big attack?

How many of the Afghanis who've been killed had anything at all to do with 9/11?

How are peace & freedom doing in Afghanistan now? How much of the infrastructure has been rebuilt? Has the lot of women improved?

[LynnTheDem]

15. None

No Taleban were in on 911.

No Afghanis had anything to do with 911.

Afghanistan is deteriorating badly and fast. UK just warned it's faast becoming a failed state, the women are worse off now than ever, the situation in whole is worse now than ever.

There is NO infrastructure rebuilt...it's still a WAR. The troops are holed up in Kabul and only come out of the city to make raids.

The rest of Afghan is under Taleban & the warlords.

[sadiesworld]

16. You make good points...

but the previous posters are correct--it would have been political suicide for a US president not to have gone into Afghanistan following 9/11.

That being said, there was/is enough to keep us busy there for years.

There was NO justification for Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

18. But...

Even the US had only a 56% majority saying ok to attack and even then a majority of the US did NOT want civilians attacked. We slaughtered a whole buncha them tho.

If the bushCartel and the US State Media had made it clear to the US public that we can get OBL & Co here to the USA for public trial, hell yeah the majority US would have said yes.

Bush never wanted that, he wanted his war. And you KNOW the US media and their bootlicking with bush.

[theboss]

24. No, trial for OBL would not have been enough

We needed to destroy his network as well, which is why we had to go in militarily. Otherwise, it would have been like convicting a mob boss without doing any damage to the organization itself - relatively useless.

[sadiesworld]

25. Where does the article say that only 56% supported an attack?

The article says that 56% of US citizens did not favor attacks on CIVILIANS (pretty scary that 44% did, IMO).

[bryant69]

7. Afghanistan could have avoided the war

If they were willing to give up Al-Qaeda or pledged to cooperate with their capture. They refused to.

Afghanistan was a pretty justified war in my mind; the real shame there is that we had an opportunity to help them get back on their feet and have largely squandered it (not completely but largel).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LynnTheDem]

9. Then I bet yer not happy...

That bush's president Karzai said last month that he wants the Taleban will be brought back into government positions in Afghanistan because only a handful of Taleban were bad men.

[LynnTheDem]

12. No they didn't refuse

They agreed to hand OBL over IF bush provided any proof of guilt.

Which is their law and it's the very same law the USA has.

You guys know better than to believe bushshit!

[treepig]

14. it's amazing how well-rooted those lies are

just like in gulf war I, saddam (supposedly) refused to negotiate.

which, of course, is absolute bullshit - all diplomatic overtures were systematically ignored in the usa's rush to war.

see http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm

but, getting back to the topic at hand:

The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.' The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead. Millions still live in refugee camps More than 500,000 orphans are disabled. Ten million land mines still litter the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan is on average 17 years lower than that for people in other developing countries. The countryside is devastated and is currently experiencing a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation. The death and destruction wrought by the U.S. bombing campaign-and the cut off of food aid deliveries it has caused-have already killed hundreds and produced thousands more refugees scrambling to escape into Pakistan.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him. But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

it's a sad commetary on the usa that most americans judge these atrocities to be "well justified"

[LynnTheDem]

17. And I bet

That most Americans don't even know that it's still a warzone, that the situation is worse than ever, the women are worse off, the drug situ is way out of control, as are the warlords, elections have been postponed 3 times to date, troops are still dying, civilians are being killed daily, almost all NGOs have already pulled out and the UN union is demanding the UN do likewise.

If anyone wants links to current disaster #1 (Iraq is current disaster #2) let me know.

[bryant69]

19. Actually I did know all that

Which I stated in my initial post; we screwed up Afghanistan (a justified war) because this adminstration was focused on Iraq (a largely unjustified war). Our failure has allowed all those situations you mention to grow. It's a a failure of the Bush Administration to properly handle the post war period, and a failure of the United States Media to show what's really going on over there. I certainly don't want you getting the false idea that I think the Bush Adminstration has done a good job.

And the claim that all we had to do was provide proof and they would have turned him over is in my mind not entirel accurate.

Bryant

[LynnTheDem]

26. Why on earth

Do you say attacking Afghanistan was justified?????

They had nothing to do with 911, the Afghanis and the Taleban. Just because OBL was there??? We KNEW he was there for YEARS! We TRAINED the guy. We FINANCED the guy. We SUPPLIED al Qaeda with weapons.

And meanwhile, the hijackers that did do 911 were living right here in the USA. Two of them graduated from US universities. Just because al Qaeda was in Afghanistan doesn't mean the Afghanis or Taleban were guilty...or should we also attack ourselves because the actual culprits were "sheltered" by us?

The Taleban offered to hand OBL over.

ALL bush had to do was show one bit of proof of OBL's guilt.

Are YOU ok with any nation saying hey give us bryant69, we want him for terrorist murders of 3000 people...without them showing ANY PROOF that you're guilty????!

[bryant69]

31. If I actually did it I guess that would be within their right

I think you are over simplifying this demand for proof. It's the nature of the proof and how it was going to be turned over that caused the roadblock. It wasn't simply a matter of them saying "Hey we'd love to help you, but first let's just make sure he's guilty." as you seem to be implying.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Here's why we have extradition laws in the world...

So that I can't get pissed off at you, say I'm in Syria or whatever, and make false charges against you and you end up framed and rotting in a hellhole the rest of your life or exectued or tortured until you're dead etc.

And the Taleban said stick to the LAW. bush said f the law. As he's done with every law since that he decided didn't apply to King George.

if OBL was guilty and we knew he was guilty, then SURELY we had ONE bit of proof we could have shown them??? We could always have bombed the crap out of them later if they refused to extradite.

GEEEEZ isn't it worth PEOPLE'S LIVES to at least have TRIED that first??? bush didn't dio that coz either he had no proof at all, or he wanted a war period.

[bryant69]

39. I suppose if I accepted your relation of facts

Then you are right it would be terrible.

[Kanary]

37. We should have declared war on the states where the hijackers trained

It makes as much sense, and would probably be more accurate.

I really appreciate you posting that poll, but I'm really upset with the rationales given here for declaring war for any flimsy excuse. I guess the sale of war toys to kids has accomplished it's goal.

Kanary

[LynnTheDem]

21. Some current headlines...

Pakistan President Vows to Help Stop Terror Attacks in Afghanistan

Afghanistan's Karzai rejects call to quit

Afghanistan's Taliban is still a deadly threat

The Unraveling of Afghanistan

Drugs Threaten Afghanistan

Afghanistan Needs Security Help

US Soldiers Fear Afghan Drug War as Opium Profits Find their Way to al-Qa'ida

Afghanistan's Transition: Decentralization or Civil War

Afghan Reconstruction Faces 'Increasing Threat'

Taliban Fighters Increase Attacks

Opium Trade Booms in 'Basket-Case' Afghanistan

Army Finds 49 Abuse Cases

Afghan Warlords 'Bigger Threat than Taliban'

Unravelling of a Nation 'Liberated by the West'

Afghanistan Probe Implicated Abu Ghraib Interrogators

After 24 years Doctors Without Borders pull out of Afghanistan

[theboss]

22. Bush fucked up Afghanistan, but he still should have gone in

It was the right thing to do at the time. It's not my fault that he got distracted by finishing his dad's business in Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

28. So tell me then

WHY was it the right thing to do?

The Taleban and Afghanis had nothing to do with 911. So just WHY are we bombing and killing them for the past 3 years?

If 911 had happened in Canada, and the hijackers were here in the USA as they were actually, the US would NOT have handed them over to Canada without proof of guilt being shown; that is US law.

So would you say it would then have been a good thing for Canada to have bombed the crap out of the US and killed lotsa US citizens for 3 years?

I really don't understand why people in this country are ok with killing people that had nothing to do with 911. And in doing "the right thing", bush lost OBL. I really don't get it.

Just revenge? Vengeance? And who cares about a few thousands of dead Afghanis?

[Dorian Gray]

40. Oh, I think that's not true....

There were many suspected terrorists in Canada. We've had joint ventures in capturing them. And I believe that the government has been pretty free in trading for the suspected terrorists.

What type of proof do you think that they need? There were tapes aired INTERNATIONALLY in which OBL spoke of the incident.

I agree that the Taliban was shielding him, and, later, trying to stall for time.

Afghanistan is a mess now. But, that does not mean that the original action against their corrupt government was not founded. I believe that it was. I just wish that we didn't largely ignore Afghanistan while focusing on a second country that had nothing to do with the attack on our country.

[theboss]

20. World opinion should not be an issue/ self-interest should be

I think this world opinion stuff is largely a losing issue for Democrats and wish Kerry would back away from it a bit. We should want to be loved in the world, but it should not be the be all and end all of our foreign policy.

The problem with the War in Iraq is that it was seriously and dangerously against our self-interest. Attacking Afghanistan was not, and I hope that a President would always act in our self-interest regardless of the world opinion.

[LynnTheDem]

23. If self-interest...

Then I'd say 138 troops dead, thousands of Afghani civilians dead, no OBL, total ruination of a country that is deteriorating fast and $1.5 billion cost to us every single month 3 years later is not what I'd call self-interest.

So what was IN our self-interest in Afghanistan???

[theboss]

27. First of all, it's hard to totally ruin a totally ruined country

Having said that, Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. The Taliban was protecting them. (Read this month's Atlantic for a really fascinating look at the inner workings of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan).

It should always be national policy to attack and destroy those who attack us, along with those who provide cover to our enemies. To me, Afghanistan was always a purely military action and it worked to a large degree. Al Qaeda no longer has a safe haven or a centralized "business office" (for lack of a better word). Hundreds of fighters are dead. Some top brass has been captured. We know more about them now than we did before. Failure to capture OBL is bad, but since I'm not convinced he is even still alive, it is not disastrous.

On a humanitarian and diplomatic level, Afghanistan has been an ongoing clusterfuck. I can't defend that on any level. But it does not take away from the necessity of the primary mission.

[treepig]

29. so when does the carpet bombing of florida commence?

after all jeb bush was harboring and protecting al qaeda operatives attending flight school there.


it never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people can parrot the party line that the 9-11 perpetrators were trained in buttfuckville, afghanistan. no, they were trained to be invisible in western societies - by attending strip clubs, eating pork chops, the whole 9 yards. was that taliban providing that training? - get serious!!

they were trained in the west. consequently, for all those advocates of a military, instead of a police-action solution, solution - just when do the cruise missile volleys get under way against san diego, hamburg, and phoenix - all al quaeda training sites?

[LynnTheDem]

32. How come...

So many people totally swallowed the bushhit on Afghanistan, yet never did on Iraq?

[treepig]

46. there were subtle (or not so subtle) efforts afoot to demonize the taliban

prior to 9-11.

for example there was the whole hub-bub about the taliban's destroying the buddhist statues in the summer of 2001. i found it just a bit odd that the the right wing media in the usa would give a damn (e.g., compare their apologist tone for much greater descration of the baghdad museum that took place under u.s.occupation). i even got an email from a southern baptist-type mourning the loss of these great cultural artifacts when this very same person in the past has been on the record in favor of destroying "idols." that was all a bit weird.

but even weirder was on september 6, 2001 i received a chain email (please forward to 10 people, etc etc) comparing the "identification badges" introduced by the taliban to the nazi treatment of the jews (see some mention of this topic here: http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/talibanattack.html ).

so, in the period just before 9-11 both media and grass-roots efforts were underway to demonize the taliban. a conspiracy theorist maybe, just maybe, might find some material to work with in all this.

[LynnTheDem]

30. ARRGH! LOL!

WE KNOW al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan; that's where we wanted them many years ago and we supported them right up until 911.

The Taleban WAS NOT PROTECTING THEM. ALL the Taleban wanted was one bit of proof before they would extradite.

IT'S THE SAME LAW WE HAVE!!!

Once again...the Afghanistanis DID NOT atatck us. The Taleban DID NOT attack us.

Al Qaeda was our best buds until 911. And there has been NO PROOF YET that OBL did 911. In FACT the 911 Commission report just said it was 19 guys and NO NATION'S SUPPORT.

So WHY didn't bush just show Afghanistan some damn proof, and get OBL for trial? WHY are we still, 3 years later, killing people who NEVER atatcked us and had NOTHING to do with 911???

[bloom]

33. "national policy to attack and destroy those who attack us"

So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?

[theboss]

44. We should

Frankly, I think Saudi Arabia has always been against us and it would make 1000 times more sense to depose that regime rather than Saddam.

[bloom]

34. thanks for the reminder

I even forget sometimes that I oppposed it...

[Kanary]

36. Thanks for posting this. What this thread shows is that the US --

it's citizens, it's politicians (BOTH Dems and Reps) *WANT* to have war. WAR is popular in the US, much more so than the rest of the world. Just reading the rationalizations here on this thread show me that there is no sense in opposing war. The US is going to have to learn the hard way, just as Europe did, by exhausting itself completely with war.

To glibly talk about avoiding war as "political suicide" is depressing the hell out of me. And I hope that all those who find it so easy to say that are, at this minute, down at their military recruiting station, signing up them and their children.

Maybe when we've trashed this whole generation with wars, maybe *then* we'll be willing to look at changing our mindset.

Kanary

[LynnTheDem]

38. Our media

Maybe if they showed what a 4 year old with her brains dripping out of her head looks like (want pics? I have some nasty ones) maybe then people wouldn't say we had to go to war or it would be political suicide.

Only American lives mean anything to most Americans, and the world knows this. It's one of the big reasons they hate us.

People need to stop & think for a minute; how would you feel holding your dead child in your arms, his/her blood all over you...and you're told "oh well, had to attack or it would have been political suicide". Just "collateral damage".

Imagine your child's life as less important than president bush's political career.

I dunno. I'm about ready to give it up and move to a mountain peak, lol.

[Kanary]

41. We can continue blaming the media, and reaping the same wars

Or..... we can look into our own hearts and begin repairing the damage that we find inside.

There are plenty of people here who already *know* "the media" is crooked, yet still say US aggression towards Afghanistan is justified. *THAT'S* why we'll continue making wars....... because even liberals think it's just fine. It's the approved way to work out our own anger and fear. It makes as much sense as the police given the right to kill not only the perpetrator of a murder, but the murderer's family, to "even the score" for the family of the murder victim. *THAT* we have laws against.

I agree with a lot of your assessments, but I don't agree that Merkins care about Merkin children. Many children die in poverty here in the US, and I don't see any outcry about that. The US has a horrible rate of infant deaths, and nobody is making a big fuss about that. There are children who die because of cuts in Social Services, but that's acceptable to this nation.

Kanary

[LynnTheDem]

42. Yeah I agree...

We have the infant death rate of a third world nation. Pakistan comes in better than we do.

An average of 3000 kids are murdered by their parents every year in this country. That's 9000 kids murdered since 911

Where's the "war on parents murdering their kids"?

Apx. 18,000 kids die every year in drunk driving. That's some 54,000 kids dead since 911.

Where's the "war on drunk driving".


Yet for 2352 US and 400 non-US dead in 911, 2752 dead since 911, we've launched 2 invasions and occupations, killed off almost half again in soldiers the amount of people killed in 911, killed about 50,000 Afghani & Iraqi civilians, seriously wounded 14,000 US troops and who knows how many Iraqis, lost $200 billion, and the "highest" approval rating we have in the mideast is 20% and we're at the lowest world approval rating ever so we're far less safe coz everyone hates us and who the hell is going to bother passing on info to us to prevent another 911 after bush has insulted and threatened and mocked every nation's leaders and out the undercover ops?

Crap. Now I'm depressed coz we are so cheneyed.

[Kanary]

47. You have all the figures exactly right. The US is #185 in Infant

Mortality Rate, so, yes, there are plenty of 3rd World countries doing *much* better than the US. Yet, as you say, we're not willing to even begin to look at that.

People died because of Clinton's "welfare deform", yet there are so many singing his praises. "Don't look, don't tell": if we don't look at those dead people, it won't matter.

And, yes, it's *very* depressing. I guess that's why most would rather just go shopping than to look at the truth of the matter.

I didn't mean to depress you -- it becomes very hard to handle. But, we have to look at reality sometimes, too. I very much appreciate that you are so aware of this stuff!!

Have an ice cream cone on me! :hi:

:toast:

Kanary

[sadiesworld]

43. "political suicide"

Are you disputing that a large majority of Americans supported some type of military action in Afghanistan? Are you disagreeing that a lot of people would have been extremely unhappy with a more measured response and would have taken it out on their representatives?

Perhaps you are confusing my opinion about the political reality following 9/11 with my personal feelings. Surely you are not suggesting that I be sent to the nearest recruiting office b/c my phraseology annoys you?!

My, my.

edit: typo

[LynnTheDem]

45. A majority did

56%.

I sure wouldn't call that a large majority.

And again IF bush and IF the media had told the FACTS they wouldn't even have had 56%.

Unless people just WANT a WAR, if bush had said ok we show proof of guilt & we're gonna get that sumbitch who organized this extradited here and bring him to trial and justice that's what the majority would have gone for.

If you read the polls info it shows that the majority of Americans DID NOT want Afghani civilians attacked. But bush went on & on how it's all mountains fu8lla bad evil OBLs and that's all we'd end up killing good riddance. He lied. If he'd told the truth, that bombing cities & towns in Afghani would of course kill tens of thousands of civilians, the US would have said hell no.

And it was BUSH who said the Taleban offers to extradite based on showing proof was just bullshit.

Just like he said Saddam kicked the weapons teams out and that Saddam wasn't co-operating and that if he denied again haveing WMD he'd just be lying to us again.

No. BUSH lied.

WHY do so many Americans know bush & the media LIED their butts off about Iraq...yet so many believe what they said about Afghanistan?

It was BUSH that got the 56%.

No I wasn't thinking you personally were equating political suicide with a good reason for war, nothing like that...I don't have the words but I mean think how easy we say that, how easy we assume that our president would of course consider that as to whether to go to war or not, know what I mean?

[sadiesworld]

49. My post was in response to Kanary's #36.

Nonetheless, the article refers to a NYT poll from 9/25 which found that 92% of those polled favored military action against those responsible for 9/11. Yes, I would call that a large majority.

And yes, I do understand that 56% did not want civilians killed. As I stated previously, it is utterly pathetic that 44% apparently wanted innocent Afghanis to die (or simply didn't care).

IF the official story line is to be believed, there was justification for LIMITED military action, i.e., bombing the AQ training camps. Obviously, that would not have helped with the pipeline, though. :eyes:

[Kanary]

48. We need LEADERS. A real leader doesn't go by how the wind is blowing,

but leads people in going the right direction. Many presidents have done that in the past.

They had a SPINE.

And, yes, your post did sound like you approved it. From now on, those who want war should be the first to sign up. As far as I'm concerned, that includes the politicians. Michael Moore was right on.

Kanary