<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pacers fan forever @ Jun 18 2007, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I mean in the two countries</div> You are completely overrating Al-Qaeda's power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>-To enable the military industrial complex to make piles of money beyond imagination. Haliburton won the war in Iraq.</div>Good point. Anybody remember that we were in a recession/downturn before the war, and things sped up once things escalated overseas? That's not saying much for how the economy is now though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ Jun 18 2007, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How could Iraq have ever been more a threat than it is right now? National Intelligence Estimates from virtually every available source claims our involvement in Iraq is creating terrorists.</div>Which is why I think we shouldn't be over there. We're making a bigger mess. Just like in Korea and Vietnam.
BCB is there a reason you call him Usama bin laden? Instead of Osama? You have done it more then a dozen times. I haven't said anything, just curious why you don't spell it right. I understand it may be able to be spelled both ways possibly as I'm not used to the language..but you're the only person I've ever seen spell it that way..and don't see why somebody would when everybody else spells it the other way.
The ONLY reasons we went to Iraq, and are currently still in Iraq is for money (oil money), and to finish off a vendetta that the old Bush presidency had.
Anyway, guys, I'm not the best person to be arguing with over this subjectBut I do beleive that the terrorists we were/are fighting would be able to destruct our country in some big waysAnd Pestilence, look at the World trade towers, how many people did two terrorist airplane pilots kill?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Combs @ Jun 18 2007, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>BCB is there a reason you call him Usama bin laden? Instead of Osama? You have done it more then a dozen times. I haven't said anything, just curious why you don't spell it right.</div> His name translates different ways. You can call him 'Osama' or 'Usama'....Our intelligence services and professionals usually call him 'Usama', and for short 'UBL"http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pacers fan forever @ Jun 18 2007, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^that's some of what I'm sayingWe're fighting one war now, right? Why does it matter where exactly I'm speaking of? I'm speaking about terrorists that are located between the two countries, and I'm saying that those terrorists are evil and powerful enought to send our country into a flux</div>PFF, while we are trying to stop the spread of terrorism, Gentile is correct in that us being there is actually causing more terrorist factions to be formed in that country. With Saddam in power there was atleast some control over the country. Now it's all just complete madness, with the sectarian violence between the Sunni's and Shiites. The terrorist networks in Iraq are gaining more and more power since Saddam was taken out of control, and it is turning into pretty much civil warfare. After Saddam was taken out of power, an election was held to get Iraqi leaders into place. The problem was, that at the time lots of Sunni's in lots of provinces decided they was not going to vote. So naturally, the government is mostly Shiite ran, and to go along with that the Shiites are what makes up most of the Iraqi National Police(INP), and Iraqi National Army(INA.) When Saddam was in charge, the Sunni's had the most power and constantly was messing with the Shiites. Now with the Shiites mostly in control, the Police and Army keep on arresting people just because they are Sunni's, and commiting lots of pretty much war crimes on the Sunni's. So naturally the Sunni's feel they have no protection from the Iraqi government, and since the U.S. is backing the Iraqi government and trying to make it work they are not turning to us. So in turn lots of the Sunni's are turning to the terrorist organizations in Iraq, for protection, effectively becoming terrorists which is understandable on the Sunni's part, but is causing more sectarian warfare in Iraq. So right now, the U.S. military's biggest concern is stopping the Army and Police from doing this to the Sunni's, so they will turn to us for their help. It's really not working well though, and major warfare is still going on in this country. So really, the War hasn't progessed much at all for us, it may have even took a step back for us.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BFR @ Jun 18 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lets do the math PFF 7000 known Al-Qaeda members divide that by 50 = 140 ok so what if they all attack one state lets say indiana then Indiana's population = 6,313,520 al-qaeda = 7000so every al qaeda member would have to kill 901 people.</div>That is not whats important. Al-Queda doesn't attack as a whole as seen by 911, they send bombs,hijack airplanes,etc. I dont agree with this war but what you said is off base. This war was a prevent- war. In the age we live in with nukes you have to be extra cautious, would you prefer a nuclear holacaust or a war in iraq? Im not saying thats what it would have come to but every day there is always a possibility. Whoever invented nuclear bombs should have been murdered. He may have sent the world to hell that day.
Valo, you know I'm not gonna try to argue with you, lolBut like I said, I'm not the one who should be defending the opinion on this, I'm not as informative on this as other people, I have opinions on the situation, but I'm afraid I cannot back them up well enough to argue with you guys on the subject, but I do think that my opinion does hold some truth and thoughts that are very real, and I think there are people out there with the same opinion who are much more educated on the subject than I am
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That is not whats important. Al-Queda doesn't attack as a whole as seen by 911, they send bombs,hijack airplanes,etc. I dont agree with this war but what you said is off base. This war was a prevent- war. In the age we live in with nukes you have to be extra cautious, would you prefer a nuclear holacaust or a war in iraq? Im not saying thats what it would have come to but every day there is always a possibility. Whoever invented nuclear bombs should have been murdered. He may have sent the world to hell that day.</div> You don't seem to understand how extremely difficult it is to get a nuclear bomb, maintain it, find people who know how to work with them, and be able to set it off correctly. Right now the chances of that are nearly impossible, especially for Al-Qaeda. The nuclear threat from terrorists are extremely low. From reading your post it seems like your drawing from a fantasy TV show saying things like 'nuclear holocaust' which is pretty laughable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jun 18 2007, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You don't seem to understand how extremely difficult it is to get a nuclear bomb, maintain it, find people who know how to work with them, and be able to set it off correctly. Right now the chances of that are nearly impossible, especially for Al-Qaeda. The nuclear threat from terrorists are extremely low.</div> and you say this from what experience? even if al-qaeda doesn't get one, we already have enemies who have nukes. I dont think Russia will be out of the picture forever either. If Russia gets taken over by another dictator, it will likely begin world war 3.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>and you say this from what experience? even if al-qaeda doesn't get one, we already have enemies who have nukes. I dont think Russia will be out of the picture forever either. If Russia gets taken over by another dictator, it will likely begin world war 3.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>and you say this from what experience? even if al-qaeda doesn't get one, we already have enemies who have nukes. I dont think Russia will be out of the picture forever either. If Russia gets taken over by another dictator, it will likely begin world war 3.</div>Finally somebody besides me who sees the danger in an enemy country having gigatons of nuclear payload, including individual weapons that could destroy Britain and Japan in one fell swoop.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jun 18 2007, 01:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You don't seem to understand how extremely difficult it is to get a nuclear bomb, maintain it, find people who know how to work with them, and be able to set it off correctly. Right now the chances of that are nearly impossible, especially for Al-Qaeda. The nuclear threat from terrorists are extremely low. From reading your post it seems like your drawing from a fantasy TV show saying things like 'nuclear holocaust' which is pretty laughable.</div>You are sadly underestimating the will of Muslim extremists such as Al-Qaeda. They HATE the United States. They are constantly hatching new plans to try and take us down. If you have ever seen some of these terrorist training videos, you would see how determined they are. One image that stands out to me is a clip where the trainees were practicing firing weapons on images of Bill Clinton and I believe they were being told where to shoot him and the quickest way to kill him etc. We are in their homeland, and trust me, they will NOT stop until we have completely left the Middle East. This is Bin Laden's crusade, and that of millions of other Muslim extremists. They will use any means to expell the Americans and, eventually, destroy us. Don't tell me that they wouldn't be able to operate a nuclear bomb; you don't know a damn thing. These people will perform a coup just to develop and harbor these weapons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BFR @ Jun 18 2007, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lets do the math PFF 7000 known Al-Qaeda members divide that by 50 = 140 ok so what if they all attack one state lets say indiana then Indiana's population = 6,313,520 al-qaeda = 7000so every al qaeda member would have to kill 901 people.</div> And that is just Indiana.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noballer07 @ Jun 18 2007, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are sadly underestimating the will of Muslim extremists such as Al-Qaeda. They HATE the United States. They are constantly hatching new plans to try and take us down. If you have ever seen some of these terrorist training videos, you would see how determined they are. One image that stands out to me is a clip where the trainees were practicing firing weapons on images of Bill Clinton and I believe they were being told where to shoot him and the quickest way to kill him etc. We are in their homeland, and trust me, they will NOT stop until we have completely left the Middle East. This is Bin Laden's crusade, and that of millions of other Muslim extremists. They will use any means to expell the Americans and, eventually, destroy us. Don't tell me that they wouldn't be able to operate a nuclear bomb; you don't know a damn thing. These people will perform a coup just to develop and harbor these weapons.</div> I'm not underestimating anything. I'm simply being realistic. And their's no need for you to give me a little 7th grade speech on how terrorists want to kill us, I've read dozens of books involving terrorism. The nuclear weapon has been around for 50 years, and for the last 50 years, no terrorist/criminal group has acquired one. Thats a long time. Nuclear weapons are secured and nearly impossible to steal or buy, because no country is going to sell such a weapon to a uncontrolable terrorist organization. (Obviously the weapon would be traced back). First, Al-Qaeda would have to get a nuclear weapon, nearly impossible, not to mention such a sale would most likely tip off some international intelligence organization. Al-Qaeda would have to find the people to take care of the weapon and be able to maintain it. Not to mention how to set it off, Al-Qaeda does not have people in it's organization with ties to nuclear technology. Usama Bin Laden has said that Al-Qaeda is sticking to conventional weapons and proven methods of attack and that nuclear weapons would be a problem.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>He said: "If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent."Defence analysts dismissed these claims. They said that although bin Laden could have access to nuclear material through links with Pakistan or former Soviet republics, he was unlikely to have the technology to cause an explosion.</div>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/11/wbin11.xml
PFF, if they bombed the White House, it's unlikely that it would matter, because none of our important leaders are ever there.BCB is right about Al Qieadiada not being able to set off a nuclear device. It takes a lot of time, money, effort, and intelligence to work one of those.ABC did a news story on Texas A&M (where I go to school), and how have a nuclear reactor that was "dangerous." ABC, being primarily a sensationalist medium, decided that they would tell in their special that we didn't protect our reactor well enough. The hilarious part was that it was downright idiotic to even see our reactor as a threat. The uranium (I think it's uranium?) has degraded so much that it isn't even feasible for use in that sort of weapon. These tv stations are just ridiculous... people think anything will destroy this planet if they see it on tv.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noballer07 @ Jun 18 2007, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are sadly underestimating the will of Muslim extremists such as Al-Qaeda. They HATE the United States. They are constantly hatching new plans to try and take us down. If you have ever seen some of these terrorist training videos, you would see how determined they are. One image that stands out to me is a clip where the trainees were practicing firing weapons on images of Bill Clinton and I believe they were being told where to shoot him and the quickest way to kill him etc. We are in their homeland, and trust me, they will NOT stop until we have completely left the Middle East. This is Bin Laden's crusade, and that of millions of other Muslim extremists. They will use any means to expell the Americans and, eventually, destroy us. Don't tell me that they wouldn't be able to operate a nuclear bomb; you don't know a damn thing. These people will perform a coup just to develop and harbor these weapons.</div>Just will won't win a war. You have to have lots of men, technology, and resources. They lack that.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jun 18 2007, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>ABC did a news story on Texas A&M (where I go to school), and how have a nuclear reactor that was "dangerous." ABC, being primarily a sensationalist medium, decided that they would tell in their special that we didn't protect our reactor well enough. The hilarious part was that it was downright idiotic to even see our reactor as a threat. The uranium (I think it's uranium?) has degraded so much that it isn't even feasible for use in that sort of weapon. These tv stations are just ridiculous... people think anything will destroy this planet if they see it on tv.</div>I live really close to where Rocky Flats used to be where they would build parts to a nuclear weapon (my parents worked there), and it is all closed up now, and turning into a wildlife refuge and some people still don't think it is safe there. Not because of any TV special though, just lack of any knowledge.
