US is bigger threat than terror |
| Posted by: h@ts | | Anyone wondering how Bush is doing in the eyes of people around the world, take a look at the this poll done by the BBC. I can already hear the replies - "ask us if we care"
| quote: |
Globalisation and the US pose a more serious threat to the world than war and terrorism, according to a BBC poll.
Corruption came second on a list of the biggest problems facing the world, the survey of BBC viewers worldwide found.
Conflicts - war and terrorism - ranked third, with 50%, followed by hunger, 49%, and climate change with 44%.
BBC World asked 1,500 viewers of its news and international channel for the biggest problems in the world with 52% saying the US and globalisation.
Respondents from Europe, Asia, North and South America, the Middle East, Africa and Australasia, ranked the power of the US and large corporations as the biggest worry (52.3%).
BBC World's head of research and planning Jeremy Nye said: "We were a little surprised that global superpowers and corruption were ranked top but we will track whether they are gaining from topical interest or are of greater long-term significance."
Wars and terrorism were ranked as the top concerns in Europe and the Middle East despite ranking third overall.
Illiteracy was ranked sixth overall with 38% followed by nuclear proliferation, also 38%, and the persecution of minorities with 36%.
Lack of drinking water and basic sanitation was ranked 12th, with 20%, while 16% rated migration as the most important problem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3613217.stm
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Americans are no different. Many share the same sentiments. So, what's your point? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
USA1 said this in post #2 :
Americans are no different. Many share the same sentiments. So, what's your point? |
People don't trust Bush. If we're fighting something as difficult to get to grips with as global terrorism, trust is one of the most important things the US needs. Bush has blown it over Iraq. It's been a confused mess from initial credibility problems before invasion to what was going to happen post Saddam. It is certainly something we could have done without while having to deal with Al Qaeda.
Do you think Bush deserves another term? I don't know anything about Kerry but do we know if Bush intends to carry out any more of the neo-cons plans written about in the Project for the new American Century?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Kerry is a knucklehead.
Put it this way. If you think we need better border protection or better security in the U.S. then don't vote for Kerry. He wants to reduce their budgets.
I want a President who is not affraid to stick his neck out and will NOT quit.
You cannot deal with terrorists with negociations or pacifism. You need to take it to them and not back off. I want a President who will persue Al Queada to their death no matter where they are.
I don't see this in Kerry.
Kerry is a quiter and cannot make a decision worth sticking with. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | If negotations with terrorist do not work then why did the US do just that in Ireland? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
USA1 said this in post #4 :
Kerry is a knucklehead.
Put it this way. If you think we need better border protection or better security in the U.S. then don't vote for Kerry. He wants to reduce their budgets.
I want a President who is not affraid to stick his neck out and will NOT quit.
You cannot deal with terrorists with negociations or pacifism. You need to take it to them and not back off. I want a President who will persue Al Queada to their death no matter where they are.
I don't see this in Kerry.
Kerry is a quiter and cannot make a decision worth sticking with. |
Kerry is a knucklehead? So what is Bush? Bush's thought that the best way to fight Al Qaeda was to attack one of the few countries in the middle east that was an enemy of the terrorist organisation.
Three years on from 9/11, Bush has bombed Afghanistan and given it back to the warlords. How the Afghans must be celebrating that one. Secondly he's embroiled the US in an unnecessary war with no exit strategy. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has regrouped and reorgnaised and joined forces with every tin-pot terrorist group in the world.
Foreign policy doesn't get much more knuckledeaded.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | What rock have you been living under?
Afganastan in the hands of Warlords? That's ppretty funny.
Al Queada has been in Iraq for years prior to 911.
Go ahead, vote for Kerry. Then go hide. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
USA1 said this in post #7 :
What rock have you been living under?
Afganastan in the hands of Warlords? That's ppretty funny.
Al Queada has been in Iraq for years prior to 911.
Go ahead, vote for Kerry. Then go hide. |
That's good - hide  Isn't that what Bush and everyone else in his government did during Vietnam. Were they smart to not to fight or just cowards? Mabye their overcompensating now.
What rock have you been living under? Not the same dark rock you've been living under. It's hardly funny that much of Afghaninstan is under control of warlords. These are the people that caused so much suffering to the Afghans, they welcomed the Taliban who removed them.
Al Queada has been in Iraq for years prior to 911
Where do you get this gem of information. Was this Bush reason number 9 for invading Iraq? US governmetns have had better relations with Saddam than Bin Laden. Where do you get this cr@p from?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | [QUOTE]USA1 said this in post #7 :
[B]What rock have you been living under?
Afganastan in the hands of Warlords? That's ppretty funny.
Well you must be the only one laughing, large parts of Afghanistan are in Warlord control. I have seen reports on the whole problem of Warlords controling the "destruction" of poppy fields and they also have total power in some villages while the new central governmnet is either unaware ( yeah right), to far away to deal with the situation (BS) or to scared to deal with them ( Bingo).
Al Queada has been in Iraq for years prior to 911.
and the UK, France, Germany, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Canada and of course the US. Just out of intrest because you brought it up how many of the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi? I think it was zero was it not | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Wishfull thinking again lodge?
Sometimes I think you guys are either just plain stupid or brainwashed or both.
Who said anything about 9/11? Can you even keep focused? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | More like blind faith ( or stupidity) from you.
Did you not mention 9/11 "al Queda has been Iraq prior to 9/11" that sound like mentioning it to me.
Try to keep up with your own comments it should not be hard aftre all you are disregarding everyone elses. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #1 :
Anyone wondering how Bush is doing in the eyes of people around the world, take a look at the this poll done by the BBC. I can already hear the replies - "ask us if we care"
|
"ask us if we care"
 'Nuff said. Glad to see that you're getting the message.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: I use logic | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #8 :
That's good - hide Isn't that what Bush and everyone else in his government did during Vietnam. Were they smart to not to fight or just cowards? Mabye their overcompensating now. |
Anyone remember 'draft dodging Willy'?? I find it funny no one brings that up.
| quote: |
What rock have you been living under? Not the same dark rock you've been living under. It's hardly funny that much of Afghaninstan is under control of warlords. These are the people that caused so much suffering to the Afghans, they welcomed the Taliban who removed them. |
I dunno what to say, I had the understanding that Al-Queida was on the run in Afhghanistan, and that our troops are still there.
| quote: |
Al Queada has been in Iraq for years prior to 911
Where do you get this gem of information. Was this Bush reason number 9 for invading Iraq? US governmetns have had better relations with Saddam than Bin Laden. Where do you get this cr@p from? |
SADDAM-OSAMA LINK
New York Post ^ | 11/15/03 | CLEMENTE LISI
November 15, 2003 -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave terror lord Osama bin Laden's thugs financial and logistical support, offering al Qaeda money, training and haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday. Their deadly collaboration - which may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks - is revealed in a 16-page memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies compiled by multiple sources, The Weekly Standard reports.
Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
Two men were involved with the collaboration almost from its start.
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim - who's described as the terror lord's "best friend" - was involved in planning the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Another terrorist, Hassan al-Turabi, was said by an Iraqi defector to be "instrumental" in the relationship.
Iraq "sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors," a top-level Iraqi defector has told U.S. intelligence.
The bombshell report says bin Laden visited Baghdad in January 1998 and met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
"The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan," the memo says.
Though the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000 was an al Qaeda job, the secret memo says the CIA believes "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."
The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued to grow in the aftermath of the Cole attack when two al Qaeda terrorists were deployed to Iraq to be trained in weapons of mass destruction and to obtain information on "poisons and gases."
CIA reporting shows the Saudi National Guard went on a "kingdom-wide state of alert in late December 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia," the memo says.
And the report contains new information about alleged meetings between 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta and former Iraqi intelligence chief Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani in the Czech Republic.
Even some Bush administration officials have been skeptical about a purported meeting in April 2001.
But the secret memo says Atta met two other times in Prague with al Ani, in December 1994 and June 2000. It was during one of these meetings that al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office," the memo says.
The memo says the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden went forward even after 9/11.
Both sides allegedly reached a "secret deal" last year in which Iraq would provide "money and weapons" and obtain 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda members.
Al Qaeda associate Abu Maseb al Zarqwari also helped set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad starting in October 2002.
The memo was sent to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | You guys need to open your eyes.
Do you know how many WarLords have turned to fight Al Queada in the last 6 months? I didn't think you would know. You are too busy trying to create conspiracy theories. Go check it out. It's all there.
Unless of course it will cause you to wake up from your doom and gloom dream.
You know there are more contructive things to do with your time. Unless of course you are a loser with no friends and this is all you have to do besides playing video games all day. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: woolfe99 | | Statements made by Hots and Lodgebo regarding Afganistan I disagree with. I'd rather have parts of Afganistan controlled by warlords then have the whole country being a big Al Quadea training camp. I think it's a bit hypcocritical to criticize the US for invading Iraq because there were no WMD's and weak links to terrorism, then ALSO criticize us for Afganistan, where the link was indisputable.
That said, I have to agree with Hots' point that the US has lost some credibility worldwide because of the Iraq war. It's probably more of a short term attitude shift due to this particular event than a long term trend. Nevretheless, I don't take the attitude of some others that it shouldn't matter to Americans. How we are perceived worldwide does matter.
- woolfe | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: kula | | Its not just the war that has lost the US credibility, its that fictional character you call president. I know i'm not going to be able to explain the shear ridiculousness that is obvious outside your shores as ive tried before, but really, he is a joke (to a point, then its not funny, it's worrying).
kula | | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: US is bigger threat than terror
|
