The difference is war has rules of engagement, in most cases the U.S. tries to follow them. Terrorism has no rules.
wow...just because a group has something to do with this islam is responsible! Islam doesn't foster these idiots, one should use common sense that these are the same people that are blowing up little girl's schools in afghanistan and what harm could the olympic games pose these people? I wish God took all r****ds like these and through them into a pool of acid, might sound a bit extreme but they give the rest of us a bad name and kill innocent people.
why do people keep trying to use this lame ass excuse? bush doesn't set gas prices. niether does america. OPEC does. the US admin. asked OPEC to increase supply a few months ago. and they said no. not bush. the US doesn't control OPEC decisions. oil is a WORLD market, driven by WORLD demands, not US demands. maybe we should have had clinton politely ask detroit and all the happy unionized auto workers in detroit to slow down on pumping out all those gas chuggin SUV's in the mid and late 90's. greenpeace and treehugging leftist won't let us drill in our own backyard for oil, so we have no chance at increasing supply. maybe it was alos bush's fault that our countries largest oil producing region was devistated by 2 of the biggest hurricanes in our history? our only shot at seeing gas prices coming back down to $1.50-$2.00 a gallon is by drastically decreasing consumption.
What are you talking about? I am extremely critical of our foreign policy. I'm not sure if you have noticed but hopefully we will be electing the first black president in our history in November. If you are really concerned about terrorism against black people you should criticize Mugabe.
DaDa, it isn't 640,000. It was around 700,000 a year ago i think, at least thats what michael savage said. Our involvement ushered chaos, the Shiites who were discriminated under Sadaam went hay wire with their new found freedom and started killing their previous oppressors, the sunnis. The sunnis fought back and it turns into a vicious cycle. In the mix of the bombers hundreds of people died in the crossfire. I was watching CNN like 3 months ago and there was this little iraqi boy that was burned by a group of shiites, all he was doing was playing soccer and they poured gasoline on his face and burnt him. Yes Sadaam did kill his own people, but i assure you it would have been better for everyone if we never invaded.
Isn't that just an excuse to justify your wars? Rules of engagement sounds nice in theory, but has proven to not matter much in practice. Anyway, I'm just ranting because I hate wars and really hope everyone realize that no matter how you justify it, it's still a horrible, horrible thing. Because people in the end you still leave a huge number of people dead, injured, starving, and.. well, basically just screwed. Just like the results of terrorism. And in most cases, wars are waged on a larger scale.
But not the one in Iraq...it wasn't necessary at all. Bush has royally SCREWED up this country and it's economy and has put it in the worst debt with the biggest government spending in HISTORY... Yeah....nice work W.... NOT ! DD
Bring truth to China? Yeah, that's cute. Didn't Timothy McVeigh in his manifesto also claim he wanted to show American people the truth? Pretty sure it wasn't very well received. Sammy, if you are desperate, next time try your luck to enter Xinjiang through the Afghanistan border along with your Uighur freedom fighting buddies. Should be fun.
Don't drag CIA into the mud. The Cold War is over. What you could do is asking for more allowance from the NGO(s) you are associated with, so that you could afford to stay in some hotel that has CNN, and not have to eat sh!tty food prepared by freedom fighters to get dysentery.
I don't think any war is necessary but I am sure Mr. Hitler, the Japanese in WWII, Mr. Bush and his followers, Bin Laden's terrorists will agree with you, every time.
yes but he did not possess my raffish good looks nor my boyish charm - point SAMFISHER the Afghan border is very nearly impassable up there, it is all high Pamirs, there's no point in getting in that way. I am not at all desperate, Peranakans suit me just fine.
tell mr. lincoln that. and millions of enslaved africans before the civil war. ask any european that is still alive that was around during WW2. my grandparents were born in germany and lived there untill 1952. even they wanted hitler gone. hitler made it very clear to the rest of the world, there was only one way he was going to be stopped. japan and bin laden? maybe we should have just demanded an apology from those people for attacking our country? maybe we should have never tried to fight off the british either. the pussification of america at it's finest.
Well there is no exact defenition on what terrorism is, so you can conclude this if you like. My point was just to show that 9/11 had the sole purpose to kill random people, I don't believe that's what the Iraq war was about. It could have been all about strategic position and oil, but not for the mere purpose of chaos. I believe there is a difference. Our world will never be big enough to share the finite resources in this world, thus there will always be war (....we are not made to be satisfied with what we have, we'll always want more). The only hope we have is to keep certain standards of how we fight each other.
opec doesnt control oil prices if its a WORLD market. can you at least be consistent? saudi has increased supply. it didnt have any affect. dollar dropping directly as a result of bush and co. has probably inflated gas by 30-40%. also iraq war and all that instability probably contributes significantly too. those two are a direct result of bush's policies. so pray tell how bush didn't impact gas prices.
even I, the most neo of conservatives, can't find a good solid argument against that. I agreed with the initial invasion, but agree with almost any leftist pig, that this war has gone on for far too long.
considering how much oil OPEC delivers to the world....and even worse, how much of the worlds total oil storage is in the hands of OPEC, yes they do control oil prices. OPEC may have increased production, slighltly but it is not consistent with the dollar amount oil has increased per barrel. OPEC has not increased oil production signifincatly, if they did it would drop the price of gas and thus cut into their profits. why nobody seems to care that OPEC has set even higher record profits than all 4 of the largest oil companies in the US combined, is insane. but that doesn't fit the leftist agenda, thats why you don't see it on CNN. heaven forbid you have to do a lil of your own research to form your own opinion.
OPEC cannot "control prices". If people are willing to pay x amount for oil, that's what the price will be. If enough people want it, and the amount available is limited, the price will increase. This must seem very odd to you, given your brazenly new theory of economics. I suppose you blamed Tyco in 1996 for the rampant increase in the price of tickle me elmo's too? After all, they controlled the price, right?
