Question for USAns

[Spinaroonie]

With things like the passage of the Homeland Security bill today, do you believe that America is winning it's war on terrorism fundamentally? I mean, if this was an attack on our freedoms, the government has done all the work for them.

Do we still consider ourselves winnars?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Of course we consider ourselves winners.

I don't believe we've ever won one of those War on {Social Problem du jour}. We fight them wrong.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Of course we consider ourselves winners.

But are we right to?

 

[REDWAVE]

The real question is, are we wieners?

 

[KillerMuffin]

But are we right to?

Dale Carnegie says so.

 

[busybody..]

As long as we say SHIT like this....we are LOSERS

The Homeland Security Dept is nothing more then another Boo-Rock-Racey



Top Stories - Reuters

U.S. Calls Saudi Arabia Good Partner in Terror War



By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Monday called Saudi Arabia a good partner in the war on terrorism despite investigations into a possible money trail from the Saudi government to two of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers.



But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) did not dispute assertions by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that the Saudis must be more vigilant in tracking money going to Islamic groups.


Although Saudi Arabia is considered a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, relations have been strained by the kingdom's reluctance to back U.S. action against Iraq, including permission to launch aircraft from its soil.


A congressional inquiry into intelligence failures related to last year's Sept. 11 attacks is investigating a possible money trail from the Saudi Arabian government to two of the hijackers. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.


Investigators received information in recent months about the possibility that money was funneled from the Saudi government through Omar Al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who lived in San Diego, to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.


The FBI (news - web sites) also was investigating whether some payments of $2,000 a month from Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Bandar bin Sultan, may have reached the hijackers, possibly via two Saudi students living in the United States who received them.


Fleischer told reporters: "The president does believe that the Saudis have been good partners in the war on terrorism," which was launched by President Bush (news - web sites) after the attacks the United States has blamed on Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network.


As for the issue of the Saudi ambassador's wife, Fleischer said: "That's a matter that is being investigated by law enforcement agencies." He would not comment further.


McCain said on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday that "the list goes on and on of Saudi failures and the central role that they have played in one way or another in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism all over the world."


Fleischer did not dispute the comment.


"I think it's fair to say that it's helpful to have members of Congress from both parties continuing to send signals to all nations around the world that they need to do everything possible to help fight the war on terror. That's an important message and all nations should hear it and they hear it from the president as well," Fleischer said.

Saudi Arabia denied that it financed the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, and some Saudi newspapers said the allegations were an attempt by U.S. hawks to get Saudi support for a possible war against Iraq.

"These are nothing but lies and baseless words," Interior Minister Prince Nayef said in comments carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

Adel Al-Jubeir, an aide to the Saudi kingdom's de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah, said on NBC's "Today" show he was surprised the issue had come up in the U.S. Congress.

"It leads me to believe this is being treated as a political football and not a search for the truth," he said.

Al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia was auditing each of its charities. The United States has accused some of the charities of financing terrorists.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: As long as we say SHIT like this....we are LOSERS

The Homeland Security Dept is nothing more then another Boo-Rock-Racey

Top Stories - Reuters

U.S. Calls Saudi Arabia Good Partner in Terror War

You're an idiot.

1. The homeland security bill/act has several "proective measures" which include the tapping of the phones of Americans who have no connection to terrorism, nor do they need a warrant to do so.

2. Saudi Arabia has been allies with us for a long time. We're on very good terms with their leaders and they've been nothing but helpful.

 

[ReBeLBeLLe]

I think the answer depends on your defintion of winner. Have we gained a victory? Have we succeeded in our quest? Have we earned something? To each of these there will be different answers from different people. A winner to me, is not so much one that gains a victory, but rather one that has earned something or tried to make something different happen. When one tries to make something better, in the interest of many, whether they fail or pass, or find themselves somewhere in between they are to me a winner. They have at least tried, whereas to do nothing means nothing will ever be won, and many things will forever be lost just for the lack of trying.

 

[busybody..]

I am an idiot.....please tell me something I dont know.

To say:


2. Saudi Arabia has been allies with us for a long time. We're on very good terms with their leaders and they've been nothing but helpful.


just shows you have no clue as to what is happening in the real world.

want more sand? to stick your head into? go to our GOOD FRIENDS the Shitty Arabians,plenty of sand there.

 

[RobDownSouth]

As much as it pains my soul to agree with a neofascist like busybody, in this instance I believe he is right...

The more the United States looks for something...ANYTHING...that will tie Iraq to the war on "terra", the more it appears that no less than Princess Haifa al-Faisal,
the wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States (Prince Bandar bin Saltan, a member of the Saudi Royalty himself), ultimately bankrolled the terrorists in the United States.

The Bush administration appears to be sticking to its "Iraq BAD Saudi GOOD" bumper sticker foreign policy though.

 

[REDWAVE]

Beating around the bush

This thread is touching on, but so far not really dealing with, some important questions. The first one relates to the highly unusual nature of the "war on terror." Until now, wars were always fought against another nation-state, or group of nation-states. This one is being fought against a vaguely defined, nebulous enemy: "terrorism," "the evil ones," etc. Since there is no clearly defined enemy to begin with, there are also no clear criteria for victory. Indeed, a cynic might suggest that such an enemy has been chosen to provide an excuse for perpetual war. There will always be a few more "terrorists" or "evil ones" lurking in the shadows out there somewhere, and thus an excuse to continue the war. But I would never suggest such a thing myself, since I don't have a cynical bone in my body.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, no one has yet even mentioned the more significant point: Saudi Arabia is a repressive, highly backward society, ruled by one family (the Saudi "royal" family), where women's rights are virtually nonexistent. Indeed, it is typical of many of the U.S.'s key allies in the "war on terror," such as Turkey, Eqypt, and Pakistan, all of which are highly repressive and undemocratic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay Redwave, I'll take that gambit. Yes, initially the alleged "war" (anybody seen a formal declaration anywhere?) was supposed to be against "terra". So George W. Bush committed the full strength and prestige of the United States military (750,000 in uniform) against the 3000 or so hardcore terrorists in the world.

Now it seems we have "mission creep", which presidential candidate George Bush thundered against not so long ago. Frustrated in its relative failure to fight an unconventional war (Bin Laden, wanted dead or alive, still around 430 days later...) the military wants to fight a conventional war against conventional forces. The petroleum industry would love to access currently forbidden Iraqi oil fields. Hence, Iraq as bogeyman.

Want to read something amazingly prescient? Try Eisenhower's farewell address, the one warning of the upcoming military-industrial complex.

Permanent war indeed.