glassgowkiss

Are you one of the kooks who believes Bush was responsible for 9/11? Gimme a break. And unlike your homeland of Balticfuckvia, we don't lock up our ex-leaders. It's all part of that whole stability/greater good thing. I actually like a lot of what you say; especially about the commie fucks that once held you down. But some of the ideas you seem anxious to apply here in your new home are step stones that lead back toward the ideology you fled. let's stick to the facts. 9/11 happened under his watch. blaming clinton is absurd, since this administration was in the office for almost a quarter of it's term. it's bush and his team who dropped the ball. and imagine this- saudis are still on the list of the countries on a visa waiver program! to this day any camel riding with saudi passport can simply jump on the plane and stay here for 90 days. no background checks, nothing. now how is this for national security? the ideology of communism is nicely implemented by this administration. like illegal wire taping. or a talk about restricting rights of single individuals for "greater good". hand shaking with russia- what was that?

i am sure that 138 thousand of ottoman troops near vienna had only peace on their mind..... also a million of Armenians were killed in a peaceful manner of moderate muslims. their cruelty was legendary.

i don't think tolerance was a part of Ottoman Empire or muslim chapter in history of spain. actually recycled history is pretty much right on. Khan allowed his subjects to practice their own religion, but Khan was not muslim.

it pretty much nails it. however this administration chose the worst possible response. and i don't see close ties with saudis have any long term benefits for the west.

looking back fondly? look- the guy is a genuine idiot! hired a bunch of wankers to do a men's job. if he wanted to go to war that bad he should have listened to army generals- who wanted over 350 thousand troops to secure the country after the invasion. but he didn't. he fucking kept that sheep shagger dumsfeld- which was a huge mistake. second- the biggest rate of inflation since 70's, us currency in the dumbster, biggest budget deficit ever. he makes look carter like financial conservative. oh and btw my biggest gripe- letting resurrect soviet empire! with crude over 100 bucks, natural gas all time high and gold over 1000 bucks he gave all resources to these fucks. and all the blessings to do whatever they want in the name of war on terror.

looks like mosad is really fucking bored. maybe they should start tracking bad guys instead. ww2 is over!

Kev- the biggest problem is that once it's muslim land it can't be in hands of "infidels" ever again! the second biggest problem is that most of muslims are fanatical and there is no room for religious tolerance in their philosophy.

the problem is that thus far this policy did not work. you can't win this war with military means. never happened in history. even mighty soviets did not squash afhanistan. the problem is that capitulation already happen, except nobody wants to admit it

That is no way out of line. McCain’s own words are we will be in Iraq for 100 years…..bomb IRAN…….so not out of line. McCain is more of Bush. So by your measure we would have ceded the Korean penninsula after 50,000+ American soldiers died there. And now South Korea instead of being a staunch ally, trusted trading partner, and free republic would be the other side of Kim's empire? Get a clue. doesn't mean that current approach is right either. particularly catering of present administration to saudi royal family. after all it was saudi citizens who flew planes on 9/11. the problems with iraq is iraq country in itself. there are 3 nations, who hate each other for centuries. it's more like middle east version of yugoslavia. except this administration was too dumb to see it and is still too dumb to do anything about it. in Korea there was a clear military goal. what is the goal in iraq now? first there were wmd'd, then terrorists. newsflash- husein did not tolerate competition. besides- you are mistaking issue of muslims moving to western countries and muslims living in their own homelands. personally i don't give a rats fuck what they do in their own back yard.

i would think most of europe was more then accommodating for them so far. what do they get in return- blown up trains! if they don't like western culture and the way people choose to live in this part of the world they should stay the fuck in a desert and fuck their camels. i predict in 5-10 years there are going to be detention centers in europe for these fuckers. i personally had a "pleasure" of living with sunis in one building. all i can say- i was not impressed. there is nothing moderate about islam.

i must say you are greatly mistaken. for once i must agree with fw on this one. the problem is islam and the immigrants themselves. maybe less turks. being immigrant myself i can't agree nor accept their mentality. they do move to different countries, with long history and culture. simply you can't show up and try to change these countries into muslim republics, just because you moved there. you can't even compare immigrants from mexico and other latin countries to what's happening in europe. and maybe you should posting your uneducated opinions maybe you should read some history books to understand the whole issue.

Some good info on CL: http://www.traces.org/charleslindbergh.html 1: McDermott was never a national hero. 2: McDermott never tempered beliefs or his mouth for the sake of our efforts in Iraq. 1. you are missing the point 2. republicans are in no position to issue any judgments at this moment. as the matter of fact one could hope for a lot of investigations about republicans and their activities. particularly about no bid contracts and presenting forged documents prior to going to war. 3. i wonder what do you say to personal involvement of gwb and saudis. remember it was saudis, who directly attacked US on 9/11. i did not see list of iraqi citizens entering hijacked planes. so my advice would be to pipe down your rhetorical bullshit and look more carefully into your own yard. because might turn out that a lot of your idols will be doing a lot of time after it's all set and done.

now 9/11 happened under bush- didn't it? the fact of the matter is it happened over 9 months after taking the office, hence blaming previous administration is absurd!. and his administration included people directly negotiating pipeline with taliban. coincidence? use your brain!

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise! The fact that is was in 1998--pre 9/11 and pre GWB as prez--is also relevant, don't you think? George Bush was a Texas Governor and his approval shows more then just bad judgment. Between the Taliban taking over Kabul in September 1996 and the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in the summer of 2001, neither the administration of president Bill Clinton nor that of his successor, President George W Bush, ever designated Afghanistan as a terrorist or even a rogue state: the Taliban were wined and dined as long as they played the Pipelineistan game in Central Asia (see Pipelineistan revisited, December 24-25, 2003). Unocal - which had put the CentGas Pipeline Consortium in place - hired Henry Kissinger as a consultant. Unocal also hired two very well-connected Afghans: Zalmay Khalilzad, a Pashtun with a PhD from the University of Chicago and former Paul Wolfowitz aide, and Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun from Kandahar. In 1996, both Khalilzad and Karzai were ultra-pro-Taliban. Karzai is now Afghanistan's US-backed ruler. Khalilzad also made splendid career moves: Bush-appointed National Security Council member (working under Condoleezza Rice), "special envoy" to Afghanistan (only nine days after the Karzai government was sworn in), and current US ambassador. The Taliban didn't want to play ball: every time, they wanted more money and more investments for the roads and the infrastructure of their ravaged country - until an exasperated Washington decided to finish them off. This was discussed in Geneva in May 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, and finally at a Berlin hotel, also that July, a meeting involving US, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. Asia Times Online later learned in Islamabad that the US plan was to strike against the Taliban from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan before October 2001. here is your soorce of the info: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE18Aa03.html

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

I'm not interested in engaging a nut like yourself in any debate yet alone associate with you. Clear enough? need a tissue? don't get your panties in a wad! i am just simply pointing flaws in your thinking from the past. clear enough? still waiting on the answer on vets question.....

one might argue eric harris and dylan klebold were gun collectors too, sort of. and how would you ensure they can be disabled and stay disabled?

that was an argument about Afghanistan some time ago. somehow it didn't work in our favor.

only congress can proclaim a war. supreme court has nothing to do with war proclamation.

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping.... Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner. Here you go. Man, you are dense. And humorless. i don't find anything funny when people are dying. do you? btw what about that support for the vets? somehow when it comes to facts all you offer is an empty rhetoric.

You make it sound so easy. not easy, but stupid. as an occupational authority it is the us government, who implements the law.

i am sure the same due process exists in a country called Iraq.

So the ganster down the street who shot the little girl and owns a gun is a "law-abiding citizen? so is the guy who goes on a shooting spree in your local mall or a post office......

I can't even possibly claim to claim that I comprehend the complexities of the factions, in-fighting, and chaos in Iraq. so shut the fuck up.

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts. and you'd know, since you are a middle east expert. weren't you for the war in the first place? since you knew that Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds (there is no such thing as Iraqis) are "insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts"- why are you surprised at the current state of the affairs there?