• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Vietnam

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I wish people could see further than what is sitting directly in front of them.

Have there been any terror attacks since 9/11 within the US?

Is there any possibility that the war in Afghanistan contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?

Is there any possibility that the war in Iraq contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?

I submit that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have severely hurt the terrorists, each in different ways. Afghanistan is obvious, so I won't bother discussing it.

Iraq, however, is another story. Iraq has indicated to other countries in the Middle East that we are willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism-sponsoring regimes (Saddam sponsored terrorism, another well-documented fact that is often ignored, even if the terrorism wasn't Al Qaeda). Libya and Syria are painfully aware of this, as evidenced by their response to this war. Further, terrorists are now battling it out with our military in Iraq rather than with our civilians. Our military is more than happy to take on terrorists to spare us of this. It's their job, and they like it (at least the guys I know).
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Regardless of what Kerry did or did not do, Bush dodged his obligation to defend his country, and yet now paints himself as our knight in shining armor, come to save us from terror. The fact that Bush refused to fight for his country, yet expects our men and women in service to fight and die when he says so, disgusts me and I am simply astonished that it doesn't bother more people. Bush and Co. must distract people from looking at Bush in Vietnam, so they turn all eyes to Kerry in Vietnam. It seems to actually be working...which says something sad about our country.

So you're saying you would never vote for anyone who hasn't served?

In my opinion, I would almost prefer someone who hasn't served for the very reason that a lot of you are saying that you would prefer that the president had. If someone has served in the military, active duty in a wartime deployment, they know what war is all about and will likely be hesitant to send troops somewhere. Someone who hasn't, on the other hand, can take a more objective look at the situation. I'm not saying that this is the case (Clinton didn't serve and still wouldn't send in troops, Bush didn't serve and he still will), but theoretically, it sounds good. :D

That's not exactly what I meant. I don't think military experience makes someone better suited to serve in public office, it's not important to me. However, I am bothered by Bush's attitude of "Bring it on", yet when it was his turn to fight for the country he dodged that responsibility.

To draw a crude analogy...it's like the whole e-badass effect you run into on the internet a lot. Someone who knows they won't have to back up their words with their life sometimes acts like a total badass, but if they were ever in a real fight situation they would run away. That's kind of sums up how I view Bush here. He talks really tough, but when he actually had to do the fighting, he ran away. Talk is cheap, and I don't trust people who's actions contradict their words. I would have no problem voting for Bush, draft dodging or not, if he was a man of peace instead of a "War President" who seemed proud of the fact.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I wish people could see further than what is sitting directly in front of them.

Have there been any terror attacks since 9/11 within the US?

Is there any possibility that the war in Afghanistan contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?

Is there any possibility that the war in Iraq contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?

I submit that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have severely hurt the terrorists, each in different ways. Afghanistan is obvious, so I won't bother discussing it.

Iraq, however, is another story. Iraq has indicated to other countries in the Middle East that we are willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism-sponsoring regimes (Saddam sponsored terrorism, another well-documented fact that is often ignored, even if the terrorism wasn't Al Qaeda). Libya and Syria are painfully aware of this, as evidenced by their response to this war. Further, terrorists are now battling it out with our military in Iraq rather than with our civilians. Our military is more than happy to take on terrorists to spare us of this. It's their job, and they like it (at least the guys I know).

It is YOU who needs to look beyond what's right in front of your face. There is nothing anyone has said that has convinced me our actions are the best response to terrorism. Maybe there would have been no terrorist attacks after 9/11 if we did NOTHING...or maybe there could have been another response that wouldn't have resulted in so many of our men and women in uniform giving their lives.

I submit that our current situation is far from ideal and that it could be improved upon. The fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks since 9/11 on US soil is a good thing of course, but it hardly proves that Bush's response has been the best one.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
So what is the best response? Simply stating that the way we're going about it isn't the best doesn't help the situation.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,824
503
126
Originally posted by: Todd33
Bush, Rove and the Shrimpboat vets are using it to draw attention away from real issues. They do it every election cycle; 2000 with McCain, 2002 with Cleland.

Kerry was simply showing he was in combat and was a leader of his boat and men.

It's not rocket science, but I suspect you are just fishing for something...


Those "shrimpboat" veterans are worth a million times what yer worthless butt is worth.
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
[/quote]When Diem, a corrupt dictator that no longer was as co-operative as our polititians thought he
should be, failed to tow the line that we wanted, a covert assassination by the CIA replace him
with another puppet more to our liking, Ngyuen Kao Ky, he knew which hoop to jump through. [/quote]

Ngo Dinh Diem ? Was a school mate of Ho Chi Minh, and Diem was the first president that was put in place by the US because he was a Catholic, and latter he was murdered by the CIA.

Ngo Dinh Nhu -- The murderous brother and right hand henchmen of Ngo Dihn Diem (many Viets died under his hand, and many were Buddhist/monks).

Ho Chi Minh -- US left Ho in the cold because he was a socialist atheist.

Nguyen Van Thieu ? Had education of grade 10, and was only a lowly army captain, and became a president with the US help (my memory is a bit rusty, but I think Thieu won the election by 103% with no opposition party).

Nguyen Cao Ky ? Major General, Vice President to Thieu, and became the President for 2 weeks (because the cowered thieving Thieu fled the over run country with the Vietnamese national treasures & hundred of millions of US aids & investments).

I?m very surprise to hear that most older Catholic Viet/American still praise the work of Diem/Nhu.

[Back on topic] Looking back to the Vietnam war & compare it to Iraq I see similarity of how the US lied to their people and put in place a puppet president that is parallel to Thieu.


[Edit] My bad -- Ky was a president after Diem prior to Thieu, then became Vice President.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Further, terrorists are now battling it out with our military in Iraq rather than with our civilians. Our military is more than happy to take on terrorists to spare us of this. It's their job, and they like it (at least the guys I know).
They'd be battling it out with our troops in Aghganistan if we hadn't of invaded Iraq. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq did more to swell the ranks of the terrorists as far as recruiting due to the perception in the Arab World that we are the invading aggressors.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So what is the best response? Simply stating that the way we're going about it isn't the best doesn't help the situation.

You are missing the point of what I said. I am simply saying that assuming Bush is on the right track simply because we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is very faulty logic...we should be keeping our minds open to other solutions and ideas instead of pressing ahead with a plan that simply seems to have maybe helped something, yet has numerous drawbacks.

I am a computer engineering student, I have neither the training nor the knowledge necessary to come up with a better response to terrorism, I freely admit that. All I'm saying is that just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, we shouldn't assume it was because of what Bush has done, nor should we assume Bush's response is the best possible one. The logic that we haven't been attacked, therefore Bush is doing the best possible job, makes no sense. I am simply pointing that out.

And personally I believe what I said COULD help the situation if more people listened. The unquestioning follower of any belief or position might as well not have a brain...it's not like they are using it. If more Bush supporters, and Kerry supporters for that matter, could think on their own instead of hitching themselves to someone in an all or nothing approach, we would be MUCH better off.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq did more to swell the ranks of the terrorists as far as recruiting due to the perception in the Arab World that we are the invading aggressors.
Unfortunately, thanks to Bushwhacko, we are the invading aggerssor. Had the Moron In Chief and his warmongers thought it out better, we could have done what we did in the first Iraq war and Afghanistan -- gotten world opinion and assistance with us, instead of launching a bloody ego trip with deadly inadequacy of planning.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Further, terrorists are now battling it out with our military in Iraq rather than with our civilians. Our military is more than happy to take on terrorists to spare us of this. It's their job, and they like it (at least the guys I know).
They'd be battling it out with our troops in Aghganistan if we hadn't of invaded Iraq. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq did more to swell the ranks of the terrorists as far as recruiting due to the perception in the Arab World that we are the invading aggressors.
This doesn't stand up to inspection. Bush does not decide how many troops are in each location: the generals do. Further, the number of troops that we have in Afghanistan has not been affected by the fighting in Iraq. There is also no evidence to suggest that our fighting in Iraq has swelled terrorist ranks, though it might sound good for your political agenda.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So what is the best response? Simply stating that the way we're going about it isn't the best doesn't help the situation.

You are missing the point of what I said. I am simply saying that assuming Bush is on the right track simply because we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is very faulty logic...we should be keeping our minds open to other solutions and ideas instead of pressing ahead with a plan that simply seems to have maybe helped something, yet has numerous drawbacks.

I am a computer engineering student, I have neither the training nor the knowledge necessary to come up with a better response to terrorism, I freely admit that. All I'm saying is that just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, we shouldn't assume it was because of what Bush has done, nor should we assume Bush's response is the best possible one. The logic that we haven't been attacked, therefore Bush is doing the best possible job, makes no sense. I am simply pointing that out.

And personally I believe what I said COULD help the situation if more people listened. The unquestioning follower of any belief or position might as well not have a brain...it's not like they are using it. If more Bush supporters, and Kerry supporters for that matter, could think on their own instead of hitching themselves to someone in an all or nothing approach, we would be MUCH better off.
You're absolutely correct here. However, I, like you, lack the expertise to know a better option. Therefore, I support Bush because what he's done apparently has worked to this point, and Kerry has yet to offer an alternative. I'd have much more interest in Kerry as a candidate if he'd give me something to go on, but he doesn't lay out his plan for anything. "I'll create ten million new jobs." How? Well, the economy will naturally produce 10 million new jobs in the next ten years anyway, that's the answer that he eventually gave. Bush is far from perfect, and he supports some things that I definitely do not, but at least he puts it out on the table and gives people something to rally behind.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[ There is also no evidence to suggest that our fighting in Iraq has swelled terrorist ranks, though it might sound good for your political agenda.

So in your opinion all these Foriegn fighters in Iraq now were already part of Al Qaeda's ranks even before we invaded Iraq? Sounds good for your political agenda.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Further, terrorists are now battling it out with our military in Iraq rather than with our civilians. Our military is more than happy to take on terrorists to spare us of this. It's their job, and they like it (at least the guys I know).
They'd be battling it out with our troops in Aghganistan if we hadn't of invaded Iraq. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq did more to swell the ranks of the terrorists as far as recruiting due to the perception in the Arab World that we are the invading aggressors.
This doesn't stand up to inspection. Bush does not decide how many troops are in each location: the generals do. Further, the number of troops that we have in Afghanistan has not been affected by the fighting in Iraq. There is also no evidence to suggest that our fighting in Iraq has swelled terrorist ranks, though it might sound good for your political agenda.
a report released a month or two ago said that terrorist attacks were at an all time high in 2003
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[ There is also no evidence to suggest that our fighting in Iraq has swelled terrorist ranks, though it might sound good for your political agenda.

So in your opinion all these Foriegn fighters in Iraq now were already part of Al Qaeda's ranks even before we invaded Iraq? Sounds good for your political agenda.

No, and most of them aren't Al Qaeda now. They're foreign fighters, like you said. People in Syria and Iran have never needed any reasons to hate Americans. Our troops being there just allows them to do something about it.

Originally posted by: Czar
a report released a month or two ago said that terrorist attacks were at an all time high in 2003
So where are these attacks that you speak of? There were lots of suicide bombings in Israel - those are probably the most numerous, but you can't blame those on us being in Iraq. Further, members of terrorist organizations are usually in the organization for years before they actually commit an attack. If anything, IF the increased number in 2003 has any basis, it's probably due to ranks swollen by an increase in terrorist confidence after 9/11.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, Kerry brought up the fact that he's a war hero and used that as the entire platform for the DNC. Why? I honestly want to know why people think it's important.

The entire platform?


:roll:


Why do people spout inane bullsh*t like that?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
That was all that was covered in newspapers, anyway. If you can point me to what else his platform is, I genuinely would like to read it.
 

TheAudit

Diamond Member
May 2, 2003
4,194
0
0
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm sick and tired of Vietnam, or any service records regarding any war, being discussed with regards to an election. Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for? I am thoroughly mystified by this.

In my opinion, being an officer in the army doesn't make you any more qualified to be the next president than does being a manager at a grocery store. Anyone that can offer useful insight as to why this is so important to so many people in lieu of debating other issues, I'm all ears.

Agreed, but Kerry is making it the basis of his campaign. He should be talking about his senate record. But, he doesn't have a good one is he doesn't make a big deal about it.

 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was all that was covered in newspapers, anyway. If you can point me to what else his platform is, I genuinely would like to read it.

Did you read the official web sight, did you read the book they published? You seem to feign ignorance to make a covert statement, but you do it with such a repeatable pattern.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm sick and tired of Vietnam, or any service records regarding any war, being discussed with regards to an election. Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for? I am thoroughly mystified by this.

In my opinion, being an officer in the army doesn't make you any more qualified to be the next president than does being a manager at a grocery store. Anyone that can offer useful insight as to why this is so important to so many people in lieu of debating other issues, I'm all ears.

Agreed, but Kerry is making it the basis of his campaign. He should be talking about his senate record. But, he doesn't have a good one is he doesn't make a big deal about it. Bob Dole speaks the truth.

Moreover, isn't it ironic that Vietnam service matters now to Democrats--the party that told us Vietnam service didn't matter 12 years ago? Funny how that works...the ol' "bait-and-switch."
 

vanln

Member
Aug 1, 2002
180
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's really quite simple - Viet Nam is the first war that the U.S. was not a decisive 'Winner'.

Our politians first involved our 'Advisors' into this conflict under the Eisenhower Administration,
while we were in the act of assisting France hold onto their fiscal investments in the area - the
Lipton Tea Plantations in the Central Highlands, and the Michelan Rubber Plantations in the rest of
the country, the South was the agricultural area of Viet Nam, the North was the Insustrial region,
and whoever controled the production of food (rice) controled that part of the world.

Somewhere along the line we had been supporting Ho Chi Mihn in his countries quest to escape
from the colonialism of France and their domination of Viet Nam, and the extended control of
French Indo-China - which included Siam (Thailand), Laos, Cambodia, Burma, and influence in
the politics and economy of Malaysia.

As we supported Ho &amp; his fighters, we were also burning thd candle at both ends - by supporting
France directly with military advisors in their set peice batles against an enemy that had taken
to the underground, and was fighting the French by using their place in the citizenry to resist.

After a huge defeat of the French in Dien Bien Phu in 1954 - and when the Mobile Group 100
was wiped out to the man at the Yang Mai Pass between Pleiku &amp; An Khe (no survivors) then the
subsequent failure to do what the political agreement with Ho &amp; Co had been, we - the U.S.,
tried to place a puppet government under Diem to stabilize the countey and secure the financial
assets that France had, as they were now in our corporate benefactors best intrest.

When Diem, a corrupt dictator that no longer was as co-operative as our polititians thought he
should be, failed to tow the line that we wanted, a covert assassination by the CIA replace him
with another puppet more to our liking, Ngyuen Kao Ky, he knew which hoop to jump through.

Then Kennedy was assassinated (posible revenge killing by the family of Diem) - and Lyndon
Johnson became the President. Well Mr. Johnson had a pack of liars and manipulators for a
cabinet that he had inherited from Kennedy, and with their internal power struggle to be the most
important people in the world, they never actually told him the truth of the matter, but they manufactured
convenient details such as the 'Domino Theory' - that if Viet Nam went under
Communist Influence, all the other countries in the area would immediately - if not sooner,
fall under Communism - and the world as we know it would come to an end, and everybody in
the United States would become a Russian speaking pawn of the Soviet Union. They went so far
as to fabricate 'The Gulf of Tonkin Incident' where a U.S. ship was attacked by North Viet Nam.
(Never Happened) but Johnson was told by McNamera &amp; his Cabinet that it did happen.
Johnson ordered an escallation of support and commited troops to Viet Nam and the run-away
snow-ball was on the way, more money more troops, but no truth to support what we were doing.

When Johnson found out that what he had been feed as 'The Gospel' was a pack of lies, he refused
to run for re-election, and in effect conceded the Presidency to Nixon. Nixon inherited this mess,
and half-heartedly attempted to disengage us from the war, within ia timefram that would prop
up his presidency so as th give him a second term - but Kissinger brokered a deal that was less
that he could have gotten 4 years - and many GI's lives earlier. Nixon became paranoid, and started
to undermine and plot against the 'Other' party, anyone who might be a threat to his Power Trip.
That brought us to Watergate, and the Executive Office supporting illegal corupt operations against
it's own citizens - and all this looks like the same stuff that Bush is doing today.

There are people that fught in Viet Nam 30 - 35 years ago, and when they go to sleep at night, they -
in their minds - are right back in those rice paddies, seeing their friends and fellow soldiers fighting
and dying again and again - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They relive thier personal horror each
and every night, and will until the day that their death sets them free from the memories of war.

It's that simple - and that complicated. Mental and emotional wounds that they cannot forget, mental
trauma and disgust of what they did - and cannot justify or face up to, and get on with in their lives.
They are unwilling to admit to themselves that our forces lost - because the polititians kept meddeling,
and would not allow them to actually fight a fight that they could win - the goals kept being changed by
the asshole pollititians back home that didn't have to die - they sent others to do thier bidding.

And now Iraq is even less justifiable - and again we cover these polititains asses so they don't look bad.






---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know where you can get the ideal ? You could get it from some book . But sound like your are a VC ( Viet cong) . If you are an american , please research more before you post on public . If you are a VC are trying to confuse other american about south VN . SO get back to north Vietnam and sleep with your communist ideal
I remember some Viet vet said : To many American read some unreal book from some idiot about Vietnam war . Those idiot guy get paid by VC to change the history

Quote
***************************************************************
Then Kennedy was assassinated (posible revenge killing by the family of Diem)
******************************************************************

Are you trying to make poeple hate South Vietnamese peoples ? What a dump dude .
I really admire your stupid imagination
I can tell you right now you are a cheap guy who is a VC or a cheap dude who are working for VC

For those who see some post talk like this guy . You guy should know that is a VC who is trying to act like an American and he is trying to make other American mis- judge about Vietnamese american poeple .

I advise you to say by the forum and go home and kiss your wife a*** . Your big mouth and your tiny brain could use for that only . Speaking in the forum with your knowledge " hehehe" I don't think soo
Then Kennedy was assassinated (posible revenge killing by the family of Diem). Make me lauhgt[:D][:D][:D]

And to those guy who are trying to support this guy ideal . You guy are the same gang . Your dirty game is too cheap . One guy flip, other will flop. Your game can not fool american poeple . I talk to some viet vet they are lauhgt at you guy like me . Go home VC . This is America , not North VN . Poeple have brain to think . Get real VC
Believe me poeple . VC have hundred of guy who work 24 hrs per days in all american politic forum . Their job , you guy should know what i mean

And to those VC ,

Why you guy don't tell American poeple that your guy send military advisor to Iraq during 1991 and 2003 wars . Before the 2003 wars start , some news post that a car in Iraq had an accident . No survivor . The car carried North VN officer.
CIA did that or what [:D][:D]
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: PELarson
It is an issue because once Senator Kerry won the nomination it was going to be an issue whether Senator Kerry and his election committee brought it up or not.


Exactly. If it hadn't been brought out up front the Bush camp would have sprung the big lie right before the election. For the repub's to say Kerry "made" it an issue is just laughable.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[ There is also no evidence to suggest that our fighting in Iraq has swelled terrorist ranks, though it might sound good for your political agenda.

So in your opinion all these Foriegn fighters in Iraq now were already part of Al Qaeda's ranks even before we invaded Iraq? Sounds good for your political agenda.


Cyclo, that's quite a pair of "blinders" your wearing. :D
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was all that was covered in newspapers, anyway. If you can point me to what else his platform is, I genuinely would like to read it.

Did you read the official web sight, did you read the book they published? You seem to feign ignorance to make a covert statement, but you do it with such a repeatable pattern.
No, I read the newspapers and watch the news to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Unfortunately, he doesn't address any of the issues, at least not in public. I've been saying that all along - nothing covert about it. Political web sites are a propaganda circus that I try my best to avoid wading through. I've safely learned about Bush's plans through this methodology, and I don't see why Kerry should be any different unless he has something to hide, like a lack of ideas.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Cyclo, that's quite a pair of "blinders" your wearing. :D
And that's quite a magnifying glass you must have, because you're seeing evidence that I'm missing. Pony up with it, if you have any. Otherwise, don't just pretend that it's there.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I wish people could see further than what is sitting directly in front of them.

Have there been any terror attacks since 9/11 within the US?
Is there any evidence that their would have been if Barney Rubble were President right now? Moot.

Is there any possibility that the war in Afghanistan contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?
Is there a possibility that large scale attacks with the magnitude of 9/11 take years to orchestrate? Is there the possibility that a plan that is being hatched right now, under GWB's watch will come to fruition is 7 years? Hell yes. Whom shall we blame or praise for that attack realizing or being thwarted? Bush? The president in 7 years? Again. Moot.

Is there any possibility that the war in Iraq contributed to the lack of terror attacks within our borders?
Is there a possibility that the war in Iraq was waged by an overzealous buffoon with little or no foresight regarding the consequences? Is it possible that the war in Iraq has made people who would have never dreamed of being a terrorist NOW become one?

I submit that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have severely hurt the terrorists.

I submit that the war in Iraq in particular has turned people who would have never in their lifetimes so much as picked up a rock to throw across the ocean at the USA, into blood thirsty American hating monsters that will spawn more and more American hating monsters for generations to come. I submit that now other American hating countries around the world will happily help fund ANYTHING that is anti American including and not limited to funding the terrorists. That's the problem with some people and your short-sightedness. They are incapable of seeing the big picture. Somehow we avoided planes hitting our buildings for decades. You want me and everyone here believe that because nothing has happened since 9/11 that GWB, the War and Iraq, or God himself has anything to do with it? Give me a friggen break.