However, the president assures us that the invasion of Iraq is part of his successful war on terrorism and the country is safer because of the invasion. He does not address the question whether some of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in Iraq might have better been spent on assuring the safety of our ports (only 2 percent of the containers coming to America are screened) and our commuter trains and buses. These kinds of targets are simply waiting for al-Qaida to attack. The war in Iraq, therefore, destroyed any chance for a major alliance against terrorists, created thousands more terrorists and diverted money from authentic homeland security.
What exactly has Bush accomplished in 4 years?
- Thread starter Clem D
- Start date
It wasnt long ago that the Dems were all over the pres. for the economy and unemployment rate. Not a day went by that someone was not on tv talking about how GW had destroyed the economy. Now that the economy is recovering, and job gains have risen drastically what have we started hearing about, you geussed it the awful job the pres. is doing in Iraq. You see I am not dillusional, thus I make no bones about the fact that GW has made mistakes, but at the end of the day I know that my security as an american is the #1 concern of Bush. You can debate how he has taken on the task all you want, but you will find very few that fill Kerry will protect the US better than Bush. Regardless of who wins the race they will make mistakes while in office. IMO give me that guy that will best protect me as an american, because without that the economy, job loss,stem cell, vietnam, natl. gaurd, tax cuts, deficits, and politics in general does not mean shit.
KDogg, You mentioned taking money from the Iraq war and spending it on the safety of our ports, and protecting our railways. You want to just sit back and wait for the terrorists to come and get us? You're nuts.
You're forgetting that, as any great military leader will tell you, that it's 100 times better to TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY....not wait for them to come onto American soil. That would be devistating. Al Queda needs to be met HEAD ON, thank god we're in Iraq battling them.
Also last I heard there are about 35 allied nations who currently have boots on the ground in Iraq....what's this about building "no alliance"? Would you rather we wait for France to help us? lol
You're forgetting that, as any great military leader will tell you, that it's 100 times better to TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY....not wait for them to come onto American soil. That would be devistating. Al Queda needs to be met HEAD ON, thank god we're in Iraq battling them.
Also last I heard there are about 35 allied nations who currently have boots on the ground in Iraq....what's this about building "no alliance"? Would you rather we wait for France to help us? lol
CHARLESMANSON said:
How is fighting in Iraq 'taking it to the enemy', in regards to fighting Al-Queda? What kind of backwards logic is *that*, Mr. Magoo? There was little to no Al-Queda presence until we occupied. Then the floodgates opened. And *now* we're fighting them there and our troops are dying daily. Yeah, that makes sense.
And while most of our military, or at least our key divisions, are bogged down over there playing traffic cop, Al-Queda has been given time to regroup.
And on top of THAT, as Kdogg alluded to, funds that could be used to actually protect our borders, in other words, protect US, are being wasted trying to democracize a country where we currently have a 10% favorable rating amongst the population. Great idea.
TERRORISM: Who is Winning After Three Years
September 11, 2004: After three years of the war on terror, the lack of a conventional "front line" or large battles, has made it difficult to easily determine who is winning. But a little effort reveals battles won and lost, and who is occupying what territory. Three years ago, al Qaeda had most of Afghanistan available for training camps and other facilities. There was even a "forged documents office" that operated openly in Kabul. Al Qaeda, or related organizations, operated extensively in over fifty countries, especially places like Indonesia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Iraq and Western Europe. Over 70,000 people were actively involved in planning and carrying out attacks. And the number of attacks against American targets grew during the 1990s, starting with a bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993. But al Qaeda was handled as a criminal matter until September 11, 2001. After that, it was war.
In three years, al Qaeda has been driven out of most of it's sanctuaries and had most of its leadership killed or captured. Initially, al Qaeda was very popular among Moslems, and the slaughter of thousands of infidels (non-Moslems) on September 11, 2001, caused spontaneous celebrations throughout the Moslem world. That celebratory mood has been slowly changing, as more and more Moslems see al Qaeda for what it really is. After the slaughter of children in the southern Russia town of Beslan earlier this month, the Moslem media finally moved broadly against al Qaeda and its terror tactics. This is significant, for Islamic radical terrorists are nothing new in the Islamic world. There have been several outbreaks in the last few centuries. Such violence can be defeated, and always is. One of the key factors in defeating these outbreaks is the local media turning against the radicals.
But even before the media shift, the American led coalition had shut down major al Qaeda camps and organizations. There have been no attacks in the United States since 2001, despite energetic efforts by al Qaeda to follow up on their September 11 "triumph.". The terrorists have been forced to make what few attacks they have pulled off, in out-of-the-way places. With thousands of similar targets world wide, and hundreds of thousands of eager young men and women willing to join their cause, al Qaeda has been able to accomplish little.
The offensive against al Qaeda is world wide and in their homeland. A recent example occurred on September 9th, when Yemeni army troops killed Islamic radical cleric Hussein al Houthi and some of his followers. This ended a ten week effort to capture or kill the pro-terrorist al Houthi. Radical Islam has long been popular with the tribes of northern Yemen (along the Saudi border). Osama bin Laden's family came from this area, moving north after World War II to take advantage of opportunities in Saudi Arabia's oil boom. Many of the bin Laden clan are Islamic conservatives, but Osama is the only one to turn violent.
Iraq has also served as an attractive place for Persian Gulf Islamic radicals to go and die. Iraq also served to inflame Saudi Arabian al Qaeda members, who began attacking targets within their own country. This led to an open, energetic, successful and long overdue crackdown on the terrorists in the country that created so many of them. The Arab governments of the Persian Gulf, long neutral about al Qaeda, are not actively attacking the organization.
Al Qaeda went to war with the world, and the world is winning.
September 5, 2004: Saudi Arabia continues its pursuit of terrorists. Police are receiving a steady flow of tips, and raids often turn up guns, explosives, and terrorist suspects. In fifteen months of going after terrorists, the death toll is about a hundred. There are still attacks on foreigners, but they now consist of taking shots at cars thought to be driven by "infidels" (non-Moslems, or, rather, non-Saudis.) Most foreigners are staying off the streets. That's not a major change, as even before the terrorism outbreak, foreigners tended to spend most of their time in their gated compounds. So there are very few incidents.
The flowing robes favored by many Saudi men make it easy to walk around heavily armed, and open fire on any foreigners encountered. But this doesn't happen often, despite the many opportunities. The many police roadblocks, tip lines and horrific attacks of Islamic radicals outside the country have been making it difficult for the Saudi based terrorists to carry out effective attacks. Recent acts by Islamic terrorists, like the murder of a dozen Nepalese civilians in Iraq and 320 Russians in North Ossetia, have made most Saudis wince, and eager to distance themselves from these maniacs. This shift in public opinion has caused more Islamic militants to turn themselves in, including, recently, one of those involved in the May attack at Khobar.
The Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia have long benefited from wide popular support. But the terror attacks, especially those that kill Moslems, have done serious damage to this support. It only takes a minority of the people to be hostile to the militants to make it very difficult for them to operate. The hostile members of the population make those phone calls to the cops, which keeps the terrorists more concerned about staying out of jail, rather than planning and carrying out attacks.
September 3, 2004: While it is generally thought that terrorist organizations no longer have countries where they can obtain sanctuary, this is not entirely the case. Three countries still offer sanctuary, and other forms of support, to terrorist groups. These are Syria, Iran and North Korea. All do it for political
September 11, 2004: After three years of the war on terror, the lack of a conventional "front line" or large battles, has made it difficult to easily determine who is winning. But a little effort reveals battles won and lost, and who is occupying what territory. Three years ago, al Qaeda had most of Afghanistan available for training camps and other facilities. There was even a "forged documents office" that operated openly in Kabul. Al Qaeda, or related organizations, operated extensively in over fifty countries, especially places like Indonesia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Iraq and Western Europe. Over 70,000 people were actively involved in planning and carrying out attacks. And the number of attacks against American targets grew during the 1990s, starting with a bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993. But al Qaeda was handled as a criminal matter until September 11, 2001. After that, it was war.
In three years, al Qaeda has been driven out of most of it's sanctuaries and had most of its leadership killed or captured. Initially, al Qaeda was very popular among Moslems, and the slaughter of thousands of infidels (non-Moslems) on September 11, 2001, caused spontaneous celebrations throughout the Moslem world. That celebratory mood has been slowly changing, as more and more Moslems see al Qaeda for what it really is. After the slaughter of children in the southern Russia town of Beslan earlier this month, the Moslem media finally moved broadly against al Qaeda and its terror tactics. This is significant, for Islamic radical terrorists are nothing new in the Islamic world. There have been several outbreaks in the last few centuries. Such violence can be defeated, and always is. One of the key factors in defeating these outbreaks is the local media turning against the radicals.
But even before the media shift, the American led coalition had shut down major al Qaeda camps and organizations. There have been no attacks in the United States since 2001, despite energetic efforts by al Qaeda to follow up on their September 11 "triumph.". The terrorists have been forced to make what few attacks they have pulled off, in out-of-the-way places. With thousands of similar targets world wide, and hundreds of thousands of eager young men and women willing to join their cause, al Qaeda has been able to accomplish little.
The offensive against al Qaeda is world wide and in their homeland. A recent example occurred on September 9th, when Yemeni army troops killed Islamic radical cleric Hussein al Houthi and some of his followers. This ended a ten week effort to capture or kill the pro-terrorist al Houthi. Radical Islam has long been popular with the tribes of northern Yemen (along the Saudi border). Osama bin Laden's family came from this area, moving north after World War II to take advantage of opportunities in Saudi Arabia's oil boom. Many of the bin Laden clan are Islamic conservatives, but Osama is the only one to turn violent.
Iraq has also served as an attractive place for Persian Gulf Islamic radicals to go and die. Iraq also served to inflame Saudi Arabian al Qaeda members, who began attacking targets within their own country. This led to an open, energetic, successful and long overdue crackdown on the terrorists in the country that created so many of them. The Arab governments of the Persian Gulf, long neutral about al Qaeda, are not actively attacking the organization.
Al Qaeda went to war with the world, and the world is winning.
September 5, 2004: Saudi Arabia continues its pursuit of terrorists. Police are receiving a steady flow of tips, and raids often turn up guns, explosives, and terrorist suspects. In fifteen months of going after terrorists, the death toll is about a hundred. There are still attacks on foreigners, but they now consist of taking shots at cars thought to be driven by "infidels" (non-Moslems, or, rather, non-Saudis.) Most foreigners are staying off the streets. That's not a major change, as even before the terrorism outbreak, foreigners tended to spend most of their time in their gated compounds. So there are very few incidents.
The flowing robes favored by many Saudi men make it easy to walk around heavily armed, and open fire on any foreigners encountered. But this doesn't happen often, despite the many opportunities. The many police roadblocks, tip lines and horrific attacks of Islamic radicals outside the country have been making it difficult for the Saudi based terrorists to carry out effective attacks. Recent acts by Islamic terrorists, like the murder of a dozen Nepalese civilians in Iraq and 320 Russians in North Ossetia, have made most Saudis wince, and eager to distance themselves from these maniacs. This shift in public opinion has caused more Islamic militants to turn themselves in, including, recently, one of those involved in the May attack at Khobar.
The Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia have long benefited from wide popular support. But the terror attacks, especially those that kill Moslems, have done serious damage to this support. It only takes a minority of the people to be hostile to the militants to make it very difficult for them to operate. The hostile members of the population make those phone calls to the cops, which keeps the terrorists more concerned about staying out of jail, rather than planning and carrying out attacks.
September 3, 2004: While it is generally thought that terrorist organizations no longer have countries where they can obtain sanctuary, this is not entirely the case. Three countries still offer sanctuary, and other forms of support, to terrorist groups. These are Syria, Iran and North Korea. All do it for political
reasons, although Iran sees a religious angle as well. Syria justifies its support for Palestinian, and other, terrorist groups as part of its effort to regain the Golan Heights, lost in 1967 when Syria joined other Arab nations in trying to destroy Israel. Iran is controlled by Islamic radicals who believe it is their duty to support terror against infidels (non-Moslems), particularly the United States. North Korea has given sanctuary to several terrorists in the past, and used terrorism itself. But at the moment North Korea is too preoccupied with economic and political collapse to do much more than sell terrorists weapons, for cash.
Both Syria and Iran have been warned by the United States (especially against Iran) and Israel (especially against Syria), that continued support of terrorists will have consequences. A recent suicide bombing in Israel, that left over a hundred dead or wounded, was blamed partly on Syrian support for the terror group responsible (Hamas). Syria has ignored repeated Israeli warnings about this, and this time the Syrians may have gone too far. Syria is also having trouble in neighboring Lebanon, where Syrian troops have occupied the place since the 1980s, when Syrian troops entered to help halt a civil war that went on from 1975-90. The Lebanese would like to have their country back, but the Syrians won't leave. Part of it is for economic reasons. The Syrians are running several legal, and illegal, enterprises in Syria. To encourage this, Iran provides Syria with economic aid as well.
Iran has continued to support terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere. Iran has long maintained terrorist training and support camps, but has kept quiet about it. But the camps are not invisible from above, and terrorists are constantly getting caught with evidence linking them to Iran. Both Iran and Syria fear retaliation from the United States and Israel, initially in the form of air raids on their terrorist camps. The terrorists can then be moved to urban areas, although it is feared that American intelligence agencies will discover where the terrorist safe houses are and continue hitting them with smart bombs. This might escalate to an invasion.
So why do Syria and Iran continue with the terrorist support? Partly it is so the secular (in Syria) and religious (in Iran) dictators can stay in power. By supporting terrorism, you have a bunch of deadly and ruthless people available to you to deal with any internal dissent. This is how the Taliban used al Qaeda to help control the Afghan population. Another bonus is that the "threat" of attack from the United States or Israel can be used as nationalist propaganda to divert popular attention from the dislike for the local dictatorship. This is one of the first things you figure out once you become a dictator. Get yourself a foreign enemy to occupy your peoples' attention, otherwise they will come after you.
Syria and Iran are playing a very dangerous game. Being known as the only countries on the planet that support terrorism could turn into a very deadly liability. What if some terrorist group, with a known connection to Iran or Syria, gets a hold of, and uses, a chemical or nuclear weapon. Guess where the retaliation is going to be aimed. The September 11 attacks were promptly traced back to al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. Within months, there was a change of government in Afghanistan, facilitated by American troops. So far, the prospect of this happening is only causing worry in Syria and Lebanon, not any serious change in policy. But the potential for disaster remains.
September 1, 2004: Islamic radicals have again run into problems getting the right message across. Murdering twelve Nepalese civilian workers in Iraq, threatening to kill two French Journalists in Iraq, suicide bombings in Russia and Israel, have all combined, in just the last few days, to portray radical Islam as murderous extortionists. This has led Islamic organizations world wide , and Islamic media, to step back from their previous unstinting support for al Qaeda, and other terrorists. The September 11 attacks were not the first mass murder incidents to be greeted in the Islamic world as "great victories" against "enemies of Islam." Previous bombings in the 1990s had the same effect. But after over a decade of this, and no positive result, the Moslem world is beginning to react differently. The killers are no longer automatically heroes. Terror usually fails, a historical lesson terrorists tend to ignore. For terror to work, it has to work rather quickly. Otherwise, the population you are trying to influence digs in and resists, often responding with terror of their own. That's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists there have to face retribution from coalition troops. Thousands of terrorists have died, and the best they can do is kidnap civilians and threaten to cut off heads. It hasn't worked, it won't work, and the Moslem world is saying so to the terrorists. That has an impact. Hostages are released, and the terrorists find it harder to recruit new people. More locals turn against the terrorist groups, providing information to the police, or taking action themselves.
The terror business is all about PR and spin. Lose the PR war, and you turn into a common criminal with a large price on your head.
August 31, 2004: The war on terror is being fought in many areas, and much of it is not being widely reported. Iran, for example, has become a secret ally of al Qaeda and Shia Islamic radicals in Iraq. Normally, Iran sees al Qaeda as an enemy, because al Qaeda represents Sunni Arab radicals who consider Shias, particularly Iranian Shias, as heretics and potential targets for forcible conversion to the more correct Sunni form of Islam. Reports from American troops and Iranian moderates indicate that Islamic conservatives in Iran (who control the military, police and courts) have been supplying al Qaeda, and Shia radical, operations in Iraq with money, weapons, advisors and access to Iranian training and rest camps. Iran, of course, has long been identified as a supporter of terrorism against the United States. With American troops next door, Iranian
Both Syria and Iran have been warned by the United States (especially against Iran) and Israel (especially against Syria), that continued support of terrorists will have consequences. A recent suicide bombing in Israel, that left over a hundred dead or wounded, was blamed partly on Syrian support for the terror group responsible (Hamas). Syria has ignored repeated Israeli warnings about this, and this time the Syrians may have gone too far. Syria is also having trouble in neighboring Lebanon, where Syrian troops have occupied the place since the 1980s, when Syrian troops entered to help halt a civil war that went on from 1975-90. The Lebanese would like to have their country back, but the Syrians won't leave. Part of it is for economic reasons. The Syrians are running several legal, and illegal, enterprises in Syria. To encourage this, Iran provides Syria with economic aid as well.
Iran has continued to support terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere. Iran has long maintained terrorist training and support camps, but has kept quiet about it. But the camps are not invisible from above, and terrorists are constantly getting caught with evidence linking them to Iran. Both Iran and Syria fear retaliation from the United States and Israel, initially in the form of air raids on their terrorist camps. The terrorists can then be moved to urban areas, although it is feared that American intelligence agencies will discover where the terrorist safe houses are and continue hitting them with smart bombs. This might escalate to an invasion.
So why do Syria and Iran continue with the terrorist support? Partly it is so the secular (in Syria) and religious (in Iran) dictators can stay in power. By supporting terrorism, you have a bunch of deadly and ruthless people available to you to deal with any internal dissent. This is how the Taliban used al Qaeda to help control the Afghan population. Another bonus is that the "threat" of attack from the United States or Israel can be used as nationalist propaganda to divert popular attention from the dislike for the local dictatorship. This is one of the first things you figure out once you become a dictator. Get yourself a foreign enemy to occupy your peoples' attention, otherwise they will come after you.
Syria and Iran are playing a very dangerous game. Being known as the only countries on the planet that support terrorism could turn into a very deadly liability. What if some terrorist group, with a known connection to Iran or Syria, gets a hold of, and uses, a chemical or nuclear weapon. Guess where the retaliation is going to be aimed. The September 11 attacks were promptly traced back to al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. Within months, there was a change of government in Afghanistan, facilitated by American troops. So far, the prospect of this happening is only causing worry in Syria and Lebanon, not any serious change in policy. But the potential for disaster remains.
September 1, 2004: Islamic radicals have again run into problems getting the right message across. Murdering twelve Nepalese civilian workers in Iraq, threatening to kill two French Journalists in Iraq, suicide bombings in Russia and Israel, have all combined, in just the last few days, to portray radical Islam as murderous extortionists. This has led Islamic organizations world wide , and Islamic media, to step back from their previous unstinting support for al Qaeda, and other terrorists. The September 11 attacks were not the first mass murder incidents to be greeted in the Islamic world as "great victories" against "enemies of Islam." Previous bombings in the 1990s had the same effect. But after over a decade of this, and no positive result, the Moslem world is beginning to react differently. The killers are no longer automatically heroes. Terror usually fails, a historical lesson terrorists tend to ignore. For terror to work, it has to work rather quickly. Otherwise, the population you are trying to influence digs in and resists, often responding with terror of their own. That's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists there have to face retribution from coalition troops. Thousands of terrorists have died, and the best they can do is kidnap civilians and threaten to cut off heads. It hasn't worked, it won't work, and the Moslem world is saying so to the terrorists. That has an impact. Hostages are released, and the terrorists find it harder to recruit new people. More locals turn against the terrorist groups, providing information to the police, or taking action themselves.
The terror business is all about PR and spin. Lose the PR war, and you turn into a common criminal with a large price on your head.
August 31, 2004: The war on terror is being fought in many areas, and much of it is not being widely reported. Iran, for example, has become a secret ally of al Qaeda and Shia Islamic radicals in Iraq. Normally, Iran sees al Qaeda as an enemy, because al Qaeda represents Sunni Arab radicals who consider Shias, particularly Iranian Shias, as heretics and potential targets for forcible conversion to the more correct Sunni form of Islam. Reports from American troops and Iranian moderates indicate that Islamic conservatives in Iran (who control the military, police and courts) have been supplying al Qaeda, and Shia radical, operations in Iraq with money, weapons, advisors and access to Iranian training and rest camps. Iran, of course, has long been identified as a supporter of terrorism against the United States. With American troops next door, Iranian
terrorist organizations have an opportunity to do something about it without getting caught. The Iranian government, of course, denies everything. But Iran is being told, quietly for now, that continued support for Islamic radicalism in Iraq, terrorism in Iraq, or anywhere, will lead to retaliation. The Iranian radicals really believe they are on a mission from God, so these warnings may not have any effect. This is why you keep hearing talk of the U.S. attacking Iran.
Meanwhile, in Yemen, the army has been fighting a thousand or so tribal fighters loyal to Islamic radical cleric Hussein al Houthi. The skirmishing and raids, going on since June, has left over 600 people dead. About a hundred Yemeni troops have died, the rest are Islamic radicals and civilians caught in the crossfire. The problem with this is that al Houthi and his followers are still on the loose, despite the best efforts of thousands of Yemeni troops, including some trained by American counter-terrorism experts. It?s thought that some U.S. troops are involved, at least to provide intelligence support (UAVs and electronic eavesdropping.) To make things even more interesting, al Houthi is a Shia, as are about 30 percent of Yemenis. While the army believes they have al Houthi cornered, three attempts to negotiate with him have been refused.
Moving further to the west, we have Italy, which is currently being accused by other European nations as being a gateway for illegal immigration. Some 300,000 illegal immigrants are believed to enter Italy each year. Much of this is due to geography, not Italy?s tolerating illegal migration. Italy is convenient for illegal migrants coming from Albania, North Africa and Turkey. In fact, Turkish drug smuggling gangs are switching to the more lucrative job of moving illegal migrants (for $4,000-$30,000 a head, depending on mode of transportation and quality of fake documents.) Because many of the smugglers, and those smuggled, are Moslems, there is fear that this illegal migration has become an efficient way for al Qaeda to get people into Europe. Something is being done about this aspect of the smuggling, but no one is saying exactly what.
Going still further west, we find Morocco has about a thousand terrorist suspects in jail, and another two thousand under surveillance. This because Morocco has been a major source of al Qaeda recruits. Last year, suicide bombing attacks in Morocco left 45 dead, and twelve Moroccans were arrested for involvement in the Spanish railroad bombings earlier this year. The Moroccans are not about to get al Qaeda gain any traction in the country, and many al Qaeda members, or wannabes, are apparently fleeing Morocco.
On the other side of the world, Bangladesh is seeing an increase in Islamic radicals trying to terrorize the more moderate politicians who still dominate the country. This is being done relatively quietly, as two Islamic conservative political parties are part of the coalition running the country. The Islamic conservatives don?t have the votes to control the country all by themselves, but they appear to have agreed to use terror to expand their power. Islamic conservatives are not nearly as powerful in Bangladesh (which, until the early 1970s, was ?East Pakistan?), but they are definitely in Bangladesh, they are recruiting, and they are terrorizing, and killing, those that oppose them.
Meanwhile, in Yemen, the army has been fighting a thousand or so tribal fighters loyal to Islamic radical cleric Hussein al Houthi. The skirmishing and raids, going on since June, has left over 600 people dead. About a hundred Yemeni troops have died, the rest are Islamic radicals and civilians caught in the crossfire. The problem with this is that al Houthi and his followers are still on the loose, despite the best efforts of thousands of Yemeni troops, including some trained by American counter-terrorism experts. It?s thought that some U.S. troops are involved, at least to provide intelligence support (UAVs and electronic eavesdropping.) To make things even more interesting, al Houthi is a Shia, as are about 30 percent of Yemenis. While the army believes they have al Houthi cornered, three attempts to negotiate with him have been refused.
Moving further to the west, we have Italy, which is currently being accused by other European nations as being a gateway for illegal immigration. Some 300,000 illegal immigrants are believed to enter Italy each year. Much of this is due to geography, not Italy?s tolerating illegal migration. Italy is convenient for illegal migrants coming from Albania, North Africa and Turkey. In fact, Turkish drug smuggling gangs are switching to the more lucrative job of moving illegal migrants (for $4,000-$30,000 a head, depending on mode of transportation and quality of fake documents.) Because many of the smugglers, and those smuggled, are Moslems, there is fear that this illegal migration has become an efficient way for al Qaeda to get people into Europe. Something is being done about this aspect of the smuggling, but no one is saying exactly what.
Going still further west, we find Morocco has about a thousand terrorist suspects in jail, and another two thousand under surveillance. This because Morocco has been a major source of al Qaeda recruits. Last year, suicide bombing attacks in Morocco left 45 dead, and twelve Moroccans were arrested for involvement in the Spanish railroad bombings earlier this year. The Moroccans are not about to get al Qaeda gain any traction in the country, and many al Qaeda members, or wannabes, are apparently fleeing Morocco.
On the other side of the world, Bangladesh is seeing an increase in Islamic radicals trying to terrorize the more moderate politicians who still dominate the country. This is being done relatively quietly, as two Islamic conservative political parties are part of the coalition running the country. The Islamic conservatives don?t have the votes to control the country all by themselves, but they appear to have agreed to use terror to expand their power. Islamic conservatives are not nearly as powerful in Bangladesh (which, until the early 1970s, was ?East Pakistan?), but they are definitely in Bangladesh, they are recruiting, and they are terrorizing, and killing, those that oppose them.
like i said before...
this is what bush will end up with...
*The worst jobs record since the Great Depression, a net loss of jobs.
*Wages declining and poverty rising
*Five million more Americans without health insurance and costs soaring.
*The worst trade deficits ever.
*The worst decline in our fiscal strength ever -- from $5 trillion in projected surplus to $4 trillion in project deficits.
*In Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, having cost the lives of nearly 1,000 U.S. soldiers and thousands more wounded, and more than $150 billion (with the bill rising another $1 billion every week), while leaving America more isolated and less safe.
Bush is cutting taxes on the rich while we're laying off teachers. He pushed through a prescription drug bill that prohibits Medicare from negotiating a better price for seniors. He sent the sons and daughters of these working people into Iraq without a plan for victory and, in too many cases, without the body armor or training for an occupation that was no cakewalk. The cost in lives and expense for what he now admits was a ''miscalculation'' is borne mostly by the same working men and women that Schwarzenegger scorns as ''girlie men.''
this is what bush will end up with...
*The worst jobs record since the Great Depression, a net loss of jobs.
*Wages declining and poverty rising
*Five million more Americans without health insurance and costs soaring.
*The worst trade deficits ever.
*The worst decline in our fiscal strength ever -- from $5 trillion in projected surplus to $4 trillion in project deficits.
*In Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, having cost the lives of nearly 1,000 U.S. soldiers and thousands more wounded, and more than $150 billion (with the bill rising another $1 billion every week), while leaving America more isolated and less safe.
Bush is cutting taxes on the rich while we're laying off teachers. He pushed through a prescription drug bill that prohibits Medicare from negotiating a better price for seniors. He sent the sons and daughters of these working people into Iraq without a plan for victory and, in too many cases, without the body armor or training for an occupation that was no cakewalk. The cost in lives and expense for what he now admits was a ''miscalculation'' is borne mostly by the same working men and women that Schwarzenegger scorns as ''girlie men.''
During the post 9-11 economic recovery, corporate profits are up 67%, but wages and salaries are flat. This is not a recovery for the people. The gap between the wealthy and working class is at it's greatest since the Depression. The middle class is being so distracted by this War on Terror, they can't even see the rug being pulled out from beneath them.
IE KISS MY ARSE
IE KISS MY ARSE
HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM LAKE FOREST AND MR T.?
WHATS GOING ON WITH THAT NEW TRUMP BUILDING-THEY STARTED IT YET.
AGAIN KISS MY PINK ARSE :moon:
IE KISS MY ARSE
HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM LAKE FOREST AND MR T.?
WHATS GOING ON WITH THAT NEW TRUMP BUILDING-THEY STARTED IT YET.
AGAIN KISS MY PINK ARSE :moon:
CLASSIC. HAVENT HEARD THAT IN 30 PLUS YEARS. IT USUALLY CAME WITH A SWIFT SWAT IN THE AISSS.
WHEN I BUY INTO MADJACKS I HAVE 2 WORDS FOR YOU. "YOU'RE FIRED". MAN THAT FELT GOOD.
WHEN I BUY INTO MADJACKS I HAVE 2 WORDS FOR YOU. "YOU'RE FIRED". MAN THAT FELT GOOD.
