Bin Laden offers truce; strong words for weak man

The taste of democracy isn't working for them? They had about a 75% percent voting turn-out in the last elections. They passed a consitution. They are enlisting in the National Guard and the Police force there. Americans and Iraqis are work side by side rebuilding schools, hospitals and parks. Just because a minority is carrying out attacks doesn't mean the rest of the Iraqis don't want democracy. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't have voted. Simple as that.

Iraq will work and America will be there until it does. They want a democracy and they have the guidance of the most powerful nation in the world to help them. We will spend as much money as we have to make sure they get democracy. We will send as many troops as we have to make sure they get democracy. Every resource is available for the Iraqi people. The same can be said for the Afghanistan population. A democracy is being installed over there after the ousting of the evil Taliban. The world is a better place without these government officals and terrorists.

In 20 years people will be calling President Bush the best president who got little credit. When Iraq is a free state and a beacon of freedom in the Middle East people will realize what this war actually meant. You can't install democracy in the Middle East is Saddam is in power, not at all. And that is what it all comes down to. We aren't going to let Osama Bin Laden and his extremists tear down what we are trying to build up. If we agreed to this truce, which wasn't even an option, we are basically going back to square one and saying that all those lives lost were in vein. The soldiers don't deserve it, the soldiers families don't deserve it, the Iraqi's don't deserev it and most of all, the terrorists don't deserve it.

Democracy is impossible as long as the nation in itself is in threat or under possible threat by another nation. Nor can it develop when the nation isn't sovereign. You can spend all the money you want or can, but as long as you spend money in that way - consolidated democracy is an impossibility.

Try and find an example of a non-sovereign nation developing democracy or polyarchy for that matter. Go on. Give it a shot. But it's futile - since it's impossible.

DWeaver - thanks for the correction. I was a bit uncertain what the translation would be.

Democracy is impossible as long as the nation in itself is in threat or under possible threat by another nation. Nor can it develop when the nation isn't sovereign. You can spend all the money you want or can, but as long as you spend money in that way - consolidated democracy is an impossibility.

How is democracy impossible when a country is under threat? Is it true you could say America was threatened by not only the British but the native Indians that were living on American soil? Wasn't that a threat? What about Bosnia? They are developing a democracy after a civil war. Afghanistan is developing a democracy, as well.

Iraq has been handed full-sovereignty and United Nations recgonizes it as a democractic state. Of course, there are a few limitations of their power. They can't control the foriegn troops inside their borders, but they can ask them to leave.

I think consolidated democracy in Iraq will happen. In my opinion, and many, it all comes down to compromise. If the Iraqi people (Sunni's, Kurds and Shitte's) can compromise on large issues in Iraq and worry about what is best for the country then democracy will survive. The people want democracy and that is all that matters. If they want it bad enough they will get it.

Is it true you could say America was threatened by not only the British but the native Indians that were living on American soil?

WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?

The NATIVE Americans were a threat to the British outcasts that later called themselves 'Americans' ???

What I mean is, both of them were fighting for the land. There were numerous American/Indian battles throughout the years. So there were other threats out there. That is all.

Democracy is impossible as long as the nation in itself is in threat or under possible threat by another nation. Nor can it develop when the nation isn't sovereign. You can spend all the money you want or can, but as long as you spend money in that way - consolidated democracy is an impossibility.

How is democracy impossible when a country is under threat? Is it true you could say America was threatened by not only the British but the native Indians that were living on American soil? Wasn't that a threat? What about Bosnia? They are developing a democracy after a civil war. Afghanistan is developing a democracy, as well.

Iraq has been handed full-sovereignty and United Nations recgonizes it as a democractic state. Of course, there are a few limitations of their power. They can't control the foriegn troops inside their borders, but they can ask them to leave.

I think consolidated democracy in Iraq will happen. In my opinion, and many, it all comes down to compromise. If the Iraqi people (Sunni's, Kurds and Shitte's) can compromise on large issues in Iraq and worry about what is best for the country then democracy will survive. The people want democracy and that is all that matters. If they want it bad enough they will get it.

Written in haste, so I might have been unclear. It refers to an outside threat. Which the native americans was not.

To problem lies in the soverignity of a state - or in this case lack thereof. You cannot seriously be claiming Iraq in the current state as an sovereign state?

There were numerous American/Indian battles throughout the years.

You do know who the real Americans are, don't you?

Right now? Iraq does have some sovereignty. Obviously, it has restrictions to it's powers but in due time they will have the power to be their own free state. You can't expect a developing nation that is starting to develop an army and police force to be able to fully operate by themselves. They are going through a large shift, patience is a virtue.

Here is my little rant on the whole Indian/American debate. Indians were here first. That's great. We fought for the land and we won. Boo fucking hoo. I don't care.

Indians were here first. That's great. We fought for the land and we won. Boo fucking hoo. I don't care.

If you actually feel this way, then there is little more anyone could say.

I find it funny how when America fights for land and successfully wins America is called bullies. However, when another country does it people say they won fair and square. But who cares? The past is the past and America is the greatest country in the world. It seems like it worked out fine to me.

The past is the past and America is the greatest country in the world

getting ahead of yourself there.

har har?

I thought it was quite funny

Leaders reprisent a country...and since bush is our leader.....

haha iman... i couldnt stop laughting great one.

har har?

see, you've got the idea.

What will happen when they finally catch Osama. Will all the"terrorists" convert to garden loving christians and become peaceful or something?

No, the fight against terrorism isn't another term for "catch Bin Laden". The whole fight against terrorism is to stop people like Bin Laden. They will keep going after terrorists, even after they capture Osama.

Capturing Osama Bin Laden will be nothing but a great PR move. I want to capture Bin Laden but in reality, that really isn't that high on my list of priorities for the War on Terror.

No, the fight against terrorism isn't another term for "catch Bin Laden".

It feels that way sometimes because I hear so many people talk about this daily (college etc etc) to an extent where I believe they feel all of this rubishness going on will end once this is achieved. The only thing I see when he is captured is increased bloodshed in the aftermath and other unecessary things as retaliation. Its like they dont realize this thing is a loooong way from being over.

Do you really think if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan that the terrorists would stop hating America? Plus, those people have a taste of democracy and freedom. If we leave now that would all be stripped from them and they would go back to their terrorist state. We didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq to negotiate with terrorists, we went in there to kill them. And kill them we will.

i cant believe what im readin. are u a true representative of americas way of thinkin bout the war on irak? i think u dont have any idea what ure talkin bout. to understand world situation u have to know bout history and to analyze and think logically bout whats going on. u cant say ww2 happenned cause there was a bunch of evil people like Hitler and his party. there were many reasons for ww2 but the most important were the embarrasin surrender conditions imposed (mainly by france) to a great power like the german empire, and the '29 world economic crisis. this annoyed german people and allowed radical nationalists like the nazis to reach the power with the known consecuences. the same aplies to the musleem fundamentalist terrorists. they dont exist for the grace of satan. there are reasons for their existence and the reasons can be found in history. it all started at the end of ww2. the jews realized they were defenseless against people like the nazis coz they were a nation spread all around the world. they have no own lands, no own country to retreat and no own army to protect themselves, and they wanted to correct that situation. they wanted the land where there was the ancient kingdom of israel to stablish their country. but that lands were in the hands of arab nations for almost 1500 years. by mid-40s that lands, like many in north africa and middle east, were in control of england. but this country was givin up their colonies and foreign controlled territories. there were (and there are) a lot of jews in england and the USA, and many of them very influential rich people (specially in USA) who pressed these countries governments to gave them that lands to establish their own country. bcoz of the fate of jew nation throu ww2 many european nations saw that with good eyes (mistake) and recognized the state of israel (another mistake). but their arab neighbours saw that like an insult and felt their land was stolen (like it really was). soon the new arab countries raised armies and
attacked israel with the intention of recover their lands by military force (not to terminate jews or else). but the arabs were poor tacticians and they lose the israeli "independence" war. time passed and the arabs
raised another army and attacked israel again. but this time israel not only defended themself but they conquered arab territories and established colonies (really funny ...or patethic, when all colonialist
countries of the world were givin up their last colonies then it came israel and start to establish theirs). with this action they lose the favor of european nations which finished the military support and weapons sellin.
when arabs attacked again, israel coudnt hold and when they seem to lose it came USA gavin them unlimited military and weapon supplies. the arabs lose again (here started the hate of many arabs to the USA) and realized they couldnt fight against israel and the uSA military power together, so there were people who started to think in fightin a different kind of war: the war of terror or terrorism. terrorism isnt an act of crazy evil people. understandable or not, terrorism is a kind of war. the kind of war a country, a nation or a group practices when it face a much more powerful enemy, an enemy who cant be defeated by normal means. governments are supported by people so if u cant defeat a countrys army, u can try to defeat his government by turnin the people who support it against them. the way to turn the people is by inflictin terror on them. this is the way terrorism work. musleem fundamentalist terrorists want to end the USA messin-in-arab-issues and support to israel by scarin
american people with the threat of cruel bombin massacres (or another ways like the 11-s) on civilians. personally i think its a stupid kind of war bcoz dumbass terrorists cant realize american people is so ignorant that they believe all the child tales their government tells them. so theyll never change the way USA government behaves. the terrorists cruel-inhuman-barbarian-andmanymore efforts are futile. so the actual problem of musleem fundamentalist terrorism is the consecuence of allowin and supportin the creation of an illegal country with such blind foresight. the solution? ...hard to say, coz u cant reset a 50 years state to another place by the art of magic, but im quite sure that cuttin israel wings by controllin his prepotent sionist behavior will ease arab fanatics and do much for reachin peace in the zone. the guilty? england and USA are the guilties coz without their agreement israel would never existed (or at least not in the way today does) and this situation shouldnt never happenned. terrorism & iraks invasion? a pathetic excuse to take control of the oil and stablish another pro-american puppet government in that resourceful zone. in the couterpart USA government is not interested in finishin terrorism coz it feed his power. with the fall of comunism there was neither enemy to fight nor reason to invest money in weapons wich is the wealth of USA. this war on terrorism is a good biznes both in oil and weapons and they dont want to cut snakes head fast and clean, they will make this long for their own profit.

I have no problem debating with you but if I stare at that post for more than 3 seconds my eyes start to burn.

It's kind of weird to see a good post with intellectual arguments full of spelling and punctuation issues.

I dont even know why Bin laden thinks we'll deal with him. The United States will never negotiate with a terrorist hands down. the only deal worth while is his neck at the end of a rope.

Capturing Osama Bin Laden will be nothing but a great PR move. I want to capture Bin Laden but in reality, that really isn't that high on my list of priorities for the War on Terror.

Capturing bin Laden would be pointless for the US. If he is captured then most of the US population would think it's time to pull out of Iraq (if they didn't already) as the 'war on terror is over.' From the perspective of the government, capturing him would hurt them and make them work even harder to convince sceptics of their reasoning to stay in Iraq. To top it off it would further perpetuate thoughts that oil is truly the only reason for their occupancy of the country.

I hope the American public realizes that Osama Bin Laden isn't the only reason why we are in the Middle East.