[walden]

brother... youre opening a whole can of worms here. theres really no end to what ones opinion on 9/11 could be. like it or not EVERYONE is affected by that somehow, theres so many religious, polictical, social and economic reprocusions you could teach university courses on all of them.

charlie sheen went on CNN saying that its a coverup, or a conspiracy... is Bush behind it in some way? an exterior motive? prehaps.

the whole question of islamic extremism, the west is taking the Qu'ran out of proportion and theres hatred towards the muslim body in western culture now. not all muslims are behind this, only a small portion, but they could justify their actions. middle eastern culture is drastically different from here and we and our media need to understand that.

theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. (have you seen the movie Syriana? good flick about this.)

there are too many little parts to this whole situation in the world now that you couldnt just list them all at once. its part of the changing world, we all need to accept that. on the other hand, we all need to take what the media says with a grain of salt, theres always bias and distortion and its not nessicarily all true.

 

[walden]

i just disagree with that moussaui stuff. not what you said but the whole trial.. they charged someone with three thousand and some odd counts of murder yet he was in prison at the time. its just because he apparenlty lied to authorities which caused them to be illprepared to defend against it. conspiracy to commit maybe, but no murder... they shouldnt kill him, just put him in a loony-bin.

 

[walden]

offender, you cant deny that there is an economic motivation to invade iraq. american oil supply is dwindling, china is buying up stakes in the mcmurry oil sands fast and theyre running out of resources and the US needs to keep up. youre right maybe the US had a noble intention too, and sure the people in iraq are free... but you gotta admit theyre blowing eachother up a hell of a lot more than when saddam was kickin around there. thats what i meant by different cultures that the majority of westerners cant understand. people forget that for the vast majority of american history theyve been isolationist, and yet now they put there noses in others business. the middle east is a contained system, it handles itself amungst itself. that is why they get pissed off when the west comes in, culturally and physically through force.

you have to ask yourself something thats very easy to answer. if there was no oil in the middle east, do you think the americans would have the slightest care for those people? no. would bush and the sauds be as friendly as they are? most definately not. is saudi arabia the most free and democratic nation around? of course not, but the US wont invade there, because they cooperate.

sorry, but im just playing the other side there.

 

[walden]

oil wasnt a factor in vietnam, youre right. but we're not talking about fighting communists here, we're talking about fighting "terrorists." the vietnam war was because of the french, their colony is underattack from communists... dien bein phu right? and then according to the truman doctrine... korean war... the united states pleages support to nations fighting against agreesion from communists. its a totally different can of worms. the united states didnt invade vietnam either, the followed strict rules of engagement and acted as observers until 1962, i think, dont quote me on the year. but that was the gulf of tonkin incident... they were attacked and then responded.

but i dont really think you can compare foreign policies from 50 years ago with those today, totally different structure in politics. thats like saying, we went to war with the states back in 1812, they just might attack us tommorow. haha well not exactly, but you kinda get what im trying to say im sure.

 

[walden]

So true... there are so many domestic issues that need addressing as well. I was in LA a few years back and I could have sworn I was in downtown Mexico City. Estimates of as much as 11 million illegals and about 3 million of them in California alone.

so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.

i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?

 

[walden]

offender, im not saying that the united states will invade latin american countries. i dont think they will personally at all, theres no chance. im just saying its interesting to see the difference stances of bushs foreign policy. im not necissarily against bush, nor for him. im just saying this to be as you put it, the devils advocate.