QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 3 2005, 10:37 PM)
This isn't Michael Moore: Bush declared Osama and Al Qaeda the culprit without any evidence, the day after the attack. Afghanistan was attacked with zero evidence of Osama or Al Qaeda. I don't know about this "blatent" evidence you're referring to, but it was only a year ago that Osama "confessed" on another one of those bogus videotapes. So if it matters where they were "supported" and "trained," let's remember that despite the FBI's claims, what they did took a lot of courage, little money and hardly any skill; that there has been no followup and therefore no international terrorits conspiracy; and that Bush used a random attack by zealots as an excuse to declare a war that his father hadn't finished a decade earlier. Goal: not to rid the world of terror, or to promote US freedom, but to make Haliburton wealthier.
I don't know what this analogy is to Britain, but I really do see that it ought to matter who these guys were and where they were from. Bush declared them all to be Afghanis and later declared them to be in league with the Muslim extremist government of Iraq. So Bush thought it mattered too.
Disclaimer: The Taliban were a bunch of pricks. If attackng Afghanistan had done the people of Afghanistan any good, I'd say what the fuck? any excuse is good enough. The problem is that after being able to declare one bogus war Bush got off on a roll.
Without any evidence? Osama came out with a video a lil while after taking credit for it... dunno what your talking about. Bush never said it was Osama RIGHT after, he came out and said literally, "those that did this will pay" when he went to ground zero. Simply using common sense it would work too considering Osama and Al quada have taken credit for the last few terrorist attacks, ie. us embassies and the USS Cole.
Who said it wasn't courageous and lacking skill (Though that assertion forgets the idea that careful planning and scheming are relevant but neway). The point is the organization was rooted in Afghanistan including its masterminds therefor the logic is to go there. Why would you attack Saudia Arabia when that wouldn't remove the organization that created the attack... the reason i mentioned britain was because the british bombings were done by british citizens. That doesn't mean you go after arab brits, you go after the people who did it, ie. al quada. The analogy works the same with 9/11.
As for the haliburton thing i can't really argue with illogical claims, next time if you say to make the US richer than atleast it'll make sense. Otherwise you sound like Michael Moore.
I agree, Bush's assertion that Saddam was apart of a massive terrorist conspiracy was bullshit so I full heartly agree with the stupidity of that claim.
The afghanistan war wasn't bogus, it was completely legitimate, and as such was backed by the UN and Europe as well as some middle eastern states. The Iraq War yes, was based on numerous exagerations and fallacies though so agreed.