Whatever. I lived it. There are two kinds of history. One that is
written about. One that is lived. Which one did you obtain your
knowledge from?

Once Libia was no longer a viable base of operations (i.e training,
supplies, resting places, recruiting centers) the activities of
terrorists became severally curtailed for a time. It took them a while
to build up a suitable base of operations elsewhere. As with any
military activity terrorists also have supply lines, operations centers
and communications. As with any military operation if you remove or
damage the supply lines it becomes difficult for your enemy to make
effective war.

" Whatever. I lived it. There are two kinds of history. One that is
written about. One that is lived. Which one did you obtain your
knowledge from?"

From verifiable sources? Hey, it's not MY fault you're too lazy to check
your facts.


"Once Libia was no longer a viable base of operations (i.e training,
supplies, resting places, recruiting centers) the activities of
terrorists became severally curtailed for a time. It took them a while
to build up a suitable base of operations elsewhere. As with any
military activity terrorists also have supply lines, operations centers
and communications. As with any military operation if you remove or
damage the supply lines it becomes difficult for your enemy to make
effective war."


It's hard to tell, but you seem to be implying that bombing Libya was in
retaliation for the Beirut massacre. If your are, you're wrong again.
The Beirut massacre happened in September of '82. The bombing raid on
Libya which killed one of Gaddafi's children, happened in April of '86,
and it was in retaliation of the bombing of a Berlin nightclub.

As Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things...."

-Kerry O.

I never even mentioned Beriut you did. I mearly responded. The bombing
of Libia was not in retaliation of the disco bombing that was merely the
icing on the cake. The bombing of Libia was after many links to
terrorist training and supply pointed at Libia and Kiddafi merely
thumbed his nose at diplomacy.

I do not have to check facts. I know exactally where I was and what I
was doing at that time.

" I never even mentioned Beriut you did. I mearly responded. The bombing
of Libia was not in retaliation of the disco bombing that was merely the
icing on the cake. The bombing of Libia was after many links to
terrorist training and supply pointed at Libia and Kiddafi merely
thumbed his nose at diplomacy.

I do not have to check facts. I know exactally where I was and what I
was doing at that time."

Let's cut to the chase-- were the people who bombed the Marine barracks
in Lebanon linked to Libya and Gaddafi or weren't they? In message 1015,
your politician's answer seems to imply that you think they were. And if
so, why did it take almost 4 years for the swift-and-decisive Reagan to
order the air strike?

Just be aware before you answer that I'm going to bring up Caspar
Weinberger and his 2001 quote again to refute you depending on how you
answer. He, quite demonstably, was closer to actually living the
scenario than you, and if HE says he doesn't know, I think it highly
unlikely you do, either.

Let's face it, from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to Colin Powell's WMD
testimony before the U.N., sometimes American presidents and their
administrations make a pretzel of the truth. As a concerned citizen who
thinks American credibility is being strained for the sake of supporting
the posturing of its politicians, I think We the People are owed more
than the half-baked version of the truth we often receive many years
after the fact.

-Kerry O.

we need to defend our own land and stop spreading ourselves so thin so
they terroists cant kick our ass. but yeah that is just me.

"we need to defend our own land and stop spreading ourselves so thin so
they terroists cant kick our ass. but yeah that is just me. "

But that's just the point-- the terrorists _can't_ kick our asses,
THAT'S why they have to resort to terrorism.

I have to almost physically laff every time I hear a talking head from
the Bush administration say something silly like "We're fighting them
over there so we don't have to fight them here." Sheesh, it's not like
they're going to mount a full-scale invasion. If they did, I have no
trouble imagining the total disaster it would be for them. Like Iraq
for us times 10,000. Americans are the most surly people on the face of
the earth and would fight like banshees to grind religious fascism into
the ground on their home turf like a pile driver waging war on an ant.

-Kerry O.

KO - my belief precisely.

sounds like alot of smoke screens to me....


oh!! oh!! quick look over there!!! we are diverting terrorists they
want to kill you!!! see what a good job we are doing!!!


while over in another part of the world they are bombing families in
the name of terrorism and commiting war crimes they would rather not
have you look at just yet...until they put the filters on how to serve
the news to you....

Why would a country drop weapons of mass destruction over a country that
they suspected of having weapons of mass destruction?

KO, I don't agree with you but I love your sarcastic humor!

smoke and mirrors....look behind the curtain to see the truth..

yeah and that truth is that the current administration in this country
is robbing it blind.

Yeah, and the next one won't rob us blind, right?
Davinci, what is truth? Would that not be the same as saying there are
moral absolutes? Or is your truth right and someone elses truth wrong?
They are politicians. Salesmen without an Amway or a used car lot. I
don't take any of it at face value. At least not until we can figure out
what the meaning of the word "is" is.

did clinton take us to war so he could give his buddys and him self a
construction contract? if so please refreash my memory

zap...you dont want to know what I consider truth about this country...
I'm not goin down that road..

"did clinton take us to war so he could give his buddys and him self a
construction contract? if so please refreash my memory "



No President Clinton did not take us to war. However he DID reduce our
standing Army down to where it is almost non-existent and we have to use
all reserves and guard when we do go to war later, cause we do not have
enough regular army.

Im sorry but bush hasnt done any thing for our military except spend
spend spend, recruitment numbers are at an all time low.