How many of you support the attack on Iraq by USA?
-
usa government is playing with our minds......way too much.....although i agree tt saddam i 1 hell of a baddie, but look at our econnomy...no is world economy..it has not been so well these 2 yrs....
Would u wan a gov tt onli think of onli war all the time???? n 1 Qn 4 u all: Would u like to have larger security to replace ur liberty of a balanced of it? <--- well this is wat the USA is doing rite now.(larger security 4 the replacement of ur own liberty)
Pls do not flame mi..jus state ur comments
I had enough info of the usa/iraq info news tt related to the 9-11 tragedy. You guys search 4 the TRUTH of all these so call war on terror. -
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00087.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Straits Times:
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/analysis/story/0,1870,142045-1031435940,00.html
Sept 11 due to government incompetence, not terrorists' prowess
By RICHARD COHEN
THE WASHINGTON POST
NEW YORK - What should I write about Sept 11, I asked a former New York City official. We were at a Labour Day weekend event and he was munching on a hot dog. He suggested I choose four people, firefighters or police officers, and tell their stories. I guess I had disappointment written all over my face, because the former official - in office back when the World Trade Center collapsed - looked down, paused for a moment, and then said: 'Write that the government let us down.'
Then he could not be stopped. He started with the first bombing of the World Trade Center back in 1993 and what was learnt about Al-Qaeda and terrorism then.
He went on to the bombing of the United States Navy warship, the Cole, in the harbour at Aden, Yemen, and how that was for sure an Al-Qaeda operation. He did not mention the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a residence for American servicemen, but he did mention the bombing of two American embassies in Africa. Those cost 224 lives.
It has been almost a year since Sept 11, but still the anger was in his voice. The government should have known something was coming, he said. The government should have done something.
'I lost a lot of good men,' he said. 'The best men we had.'
Not a day goes by when I do not think of Sept 11. People talk about 'closure' - a silly, psychobabblish term - but there is no such thing.
At whom should our anger be directed? Well, certainly at the murderers and those who helped them. Kill them. Kill them all.
But a piece of the anger - or maybe just outrage - has to be reserved for the government, the federal government. It screwed up. It screwed up bad. That was the message of a column I wrote shortly after Sept 11. I called the terrorist attack a 'massive intelligence failure', which it was on its face.
Back then, though, we knew little. I pointed out that there had been ample warnings - including an article in The Washington Post in which Mr William Cohen, then the Secretary of Defence, had warned of the imminence of a terrorist attack. The Secretary of Defence, for crying out loud.
Almost no one paid any attention. Now we know so much more.
We know that the Clinton administration was lethargic in trying to nail Osama bin Laden. It mounted a missile attack on his Afghan compound, but when that failed, nothing much more was done. We also know, though, that government officials were growing increasingly concerned.
The National Security Adviser, Mr Samuel Berger, told his incoming replacement, Ms Condoleezza Rice, that the new Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism and Al-Qaeda than on any other subject. The new administration dawdled.
CLUES, BUT NO FOLLOW-UP
THE Federal Bureau of Investigation had warnings - tips about shenanigans at flight schools. The memorandums were filed and forgotten. The Central Intelligence Agency was on the case but short on operatives who spoke either Arabic or Pashto. The airlines were asleep.
A terrorist had been seized in the Philippines with a laptop stuffed with airline timetables, but no one was putting two and two together. Maybe in another column I will dwell on grief, mourn the dead and salute the heroes.
But this one is a reminder that planes crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and a Pennsylvania field not because the terrorists were so awfully competent but because the government was so awfully incompetent.
From the Oval Office on down the line, what should have been done was not. The terrorists succeeded because the government failed.
The former city official had one other thing to say. The people who died - the firemen, the cops, the office workers - were often brave. But to label them all 'heroes', while sometimes apt, obscures the fact that they were also victims who were ill served by their superiors, their equipment, their government.
The tendency now is to play the sad bagpipes, fly the glorious flag and rally around those whose job it was to ensure that nothing like Sept 11 ever happened. Yet it did. An accounting has yet to be made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
pardon me... but wat is so damn funny that you have to go HA HA HA ???Originally posted by duotiga83:http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00087.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Straits Times:
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/analysis/story/0,1870,142045-1031435940,00.html
Sept 11 due to government incompetence, not terrorists' prowess
By RICHARD COHEN
THE WASHINGTON POST
NEW YORK - What should I write about Sept 11, I asked a former New York City official. We were at a Labour Day weekend event and he was munching on a hot dog. He suggested I choose four people, firefighters or police officers, and tell their stories. I guess I had disappointment written all over my face, because the former official - in office back when the World Trade Center collapsed - looked down, paused for a moment, and then said: 'Write that the government let us down.'
Then he could not be stopped. He started with the first bombing of the World Trade Center back in 1993 and what was learnt about Al-Qaeda and terrorism then.
He went on to the bombing of the United States Navy warship, the Cole, in the harbour at Aden, Yemen, and how that was for sure an Al-Qaeda operation. He did not mention the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a residence for American servicemen, but he did mention the bombing of two American embassies in Africa. Those cost 224 lives.
It has been almost a year since Sept 11, but still the anger was in his voice. The government should have known something was coming, he said. The government should have done something.
'I lost a lot of good men,' he said. 'The best men we had.'
Not a day goes by when I do not think of Sept 11. People talk about 'closure' - a silly, psychobabblish term - but there is no such thing.
At whom should our anger be directed? Well, certainly at the murderers and those who helped them. Kill them. Kill them all.
But a piece of the anger - or maybe just outrage - has to be reserved for the government, the federal government. It screwed up. It screwed up bad. That was the message of a column I wrote shortly after Sept 11. I called the terrorist attack a 'massive intelligence failure', which it was on its face.
Back then, though, we knew little. I pointed out that there had been ample warnings - including an article in The Washington Post in which Mr William Cohen, then the Secretary of Defence, had warned of the imminence of a terrorist attack. The Secretary of Defence, for crying out loud.
Almost no one paid any attention. Now we know so much more.
We know that the Clinton administration was lethargic in trying to nail Osama bin Laden. It mounted a missile attack on his Afghan compound, but when that failed, nothing much more was done. We also know, though, that government officials were growing increasingly concerned.
The National Security Adviser, Mr Samuel Berger, told his incoming replacement, Ms Condoleezza Rice, that the new Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism and Al-Qaeda than on any other subject. The new administration dawdled.
CLUES, BUT NO FOLLOW-UP
THE Federal Bureau of Investigation had warnings - tips about shenanigans at flight schools. The memorandums were filed and forgotten. The Central Intelligence Agency was on the case but short on operatives who spoke either Arabic or Pashto. The airlines were asleep.
A terrorist had been seized in the Philippines with a laptop stuffed with airline timetables, but no one was putting two and two together. Maybe in another column I will dwell on grief, mourn the dead and salute the heroes.
But this one is a reminder that planes crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and a Pennsylvania field not because the terrorists were so awfully competent but because the government was so awfully incompetent.
From the Oval Office on down the line, what should have been done was not. The terrorists succeeded because the government failed.
The former city official had one other thing to say. The people who died - the firemen, the cops, the office workers - were often brave. But to label them all 'heroes', while sometimes apt, obscures the fact that they were also victims who were ill served by their superiors, their equipment, their government.
The tendency now is to play the sad bagpipes, fly the glorious flag and rally around those whose job it was to ensure that nothing like Sept 11 ever happened. Yet it did. An accounting has yet to be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you were on that tower when its on fire... i sincerely doubt you can HA anything out of your mouth...
And true that the US govt have failed... but there were cases where their govt has succeeded... but as usual.. people tends to remember other's shortcoming or failure... especially big ones...
And seriously.... its sure as hell not easy when you are in the light... while the enemy lurks in the shadows.... dare anyone says that any nations on this world is prepared for EVERYTHING??
That is why military forces are needed... even if they could not prevent an enemy attack... they sure as hell can do a pay back on the enemy....
Mahatir says that military force cannot deal with terrorism except through genocide against the muslims...
MAHARAJA tends to forgets..... USA has the power to launch a genocidal war and the power to destroy the entire world if ever they feels that its the best way to ensure USA survival.... let the MUSLIMS beware.....
EVEN terrorist knew the power of USA... which is why they change their targets from nuclear plants to skyscrappers... they merely wanna slap the americans... they didnt want to incur USA's full wrath... the terrorist hide in afganistan.. believing that its remote location would grant them some protection.... HOW WRONG THEY ARE........
HaD the terrorist hits a nuclear plant to cause a massive casualty in america..... MAY ALLAH SAVE THE MUSLIMS .... because HELL WOULD BE RIDING IN UNDER THE WINGS OF AMERICA.... -
there is more than meets the eye tripwire.....i am not looking at the politics onli..i am looking as a whole......anyway do u wan it to hav war all the time n destroy the econs???
DO U SEEK THE TRUTH OR GUZ MERE LISTEN TO THE GOV WORDS?
this is wat i think..n if the things realli happen dun say i warn u all....
it is up to ur stand, tt i cannot control..... -
To exco
Many people would indeed consider Saddam and his baath party a threat to world security. However, thats the problem isn't it. He and his political party .. not the nation of Iraq. Its the leader who is the problem. So solution is to get rid of the leader. In my humble opinion, it would be cheaper and cleaner to kill off saddam rather than invade iraq. But that would open another can of worms.
America is trying to build a co-alition to invade Iraq. There are some who do not want war but peace. However,they are being painted into a corner thanks to Bush's line in the sand policy.
For our knowledge .. North Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, China, Libya, Iran, USA, Russia are all threats to the world (by nature of having nukes) .. so does the world have the right to say each of those nations have to give just cause why they should not be bombed? -
To viper52
I actually have to condem usa .. if they already know that the government of Iraq is not going to bow down to sactions and divert funds into their military, why keep up the sanctions? Sanctions never hurt the ones they are supposed to.
I have no answers to the middle east problems. However, I can not support USA's attack on iraq as there are too many innocent people who will suffer (on both ends) if USA attacks Iraq.
Suppose you counter by saying that there is proof that USA managed to find some plans for Iraq to re-invade Kuwait or do some other doomsday scenario? Then what? Just wait for it to happen?
My answer is that even if you find proof, you can't do anything about it. Just that there are possibly some invasion plans in Malaysia against Singapore (plenty of posts in this here forum saying that they will be invading us) our Mindef can not launch an invasion against our neighbour up north, saying that are going to invade us eventually, so we are here to take prevent it from happening. -
To viper52 and laser51088
You are both right when you say I have a very pessimistic view on Singapore. I try to keep it to myself but if you don't mind, I will share it with you..
When we got independance from Malaysia, what was it for? And what are we sacrificing in order to get it? I do not know what was it for as it was born in 1970. But here is what I have sacrificed.
2.5 years of NS, and so far, countless weekends of going back to camp, 2 weeks every year and not to mention, everytime I want to leave the country, I have to tell the government where I am going.
I live in a HDB, at which once the lease runs out in 99 years, it will revert back to the government ( so I actually DO NOT OWN my house .. its for a 99 year rent)
I take a MRT to work. I don't own a car. I have also never voted despite the fact I am 32 years old. My job is not secure for my fear of being replaced by a cheaper FT.
What has Singapore done for me? Sure we have the best airports, port, this and that. But WHAT does that mean to my lifestyle?
In USA, their declaration of independance it in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
There is life for sure .. but liberty? none and happiness .. very subjective. if you live like a government scholar or a minister of course you will have money to be happy, but for the rest of us peons, there is little hope.
What is all this talk about spending millions on new squadrons of planes and MBTs and submarines? Firstly, isn't what we have enough to secure us many times over? Secondly, does it make our life easier? No. So I am pessimistic.
And thirldy There is ABSOLUTELY no thread in this forum that gives a shit about how our government is squandering its treasures on white elephants, instead, we see how we are celebrating each purchase of military hardware as how it will improve our quiality of life. Where is the leadership of this country leading us? Into war ? or into a developed nation status.
I don't want to destroy this thread .. as its a very relevant topic .. please start a new thread if you want to debate with me on the non-military and economic policies and failures of our government. -
kenhor, I feel for your "situation". Definitely that is the truth for most Singaporeans like you and me. What you see here is just a small part of the big picture. We choose to talk about military affairs here simply because most of us have an interest in it. Please do not misinterpret it as celebrating the Government throwing money on white elephants. I've said in my other post, our defence budget does not take up a large percentage of our GDP. The Government has to strike a balance between being ready for war and being a developed nation. Somehow I think the 2 doesn't go hand in hand to you. If the Government cuts its defence expenditure significantly, it effectively means we are choking our military. Who will defend us then? Will it be better to anyone if Malaysia or Indonesia gains possesion of our land?Originally posted by kenhor:To viper52 and laser51088
You are both right when you say I have a very pessimistic view on Singapore. I try to keep it to myself but if you don't mind, I will share it with you..
When we got independance from Malaysia, what was it for? And what are we sacrificing in order to get it? I do not know what was it for as it was born in 1970. But here is what I have sacrificed.
2.5 years of NS, and so far, countless weekends of going back to camp, 2 weeks every year and not to mention, everytime I want to leave the country, I have to tell the government where I am going.
I live in a HDB, at which once the lease runs out in 99 years, it will revert back to the government ( so I actually DO NOT OWN my house .. its for a 99 year rent)
I take a MRT to work. I don't own a car. I have also never voted despite the fact I am 32 years old. My job is not secure for my fear of being replaced by a cheaper FT.
What has Singapore done for me? Sure we have the best airports, port, this and that. But WHAT does that mean to my lifestyle?
In USA, their declaration of independance it in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
There is life for sure .. but liberty? none and happiness .. very subjective. if you live like a government scholar or a minister of course you will have money to be happy, but for the rest of us peons, there is little hope.
What is all this talk about spending millions on new squadrons of planes and MBTs and submarines? Firstly, isn't what we have enough to secure us many times over? Secondly, does it make our life easier? No. So I am pessimistic.
And thirldy There is ABSOLUTELY no thread in this forum that gives a shit about how our government is squandering its treasures on white elephants, instead, we see how we are celebrating each purchase of military hardware as how it will improve our quiality of life. Where is the leadership of this country leading us? Into war ? or into a developed nation status.
I don't want to destroy this thread .. as its a very relevant topic .. please start a new thread if you want to debate with me on the non-military and economic policies and failures of our government. -
I believe that we have to look past "colonializm" as a pure military concept. True, in the past, our masters had to resort to armies to conquer. Nowadays, its a different ball game.
Dr M is not afraid of being invaded. He is afraid of his people totally dependant on foreign companies for jobs. That is the true strength of your own nation. When you can depend on your homegrown companies.
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan are countries that have thrown off the yoke of the new colonist. Sadly, Singapore is totally dependant on FDI to survive. If we were to be cut off from FDI, we will suffer. Same goes for Malaysia. They will sink if FDI is gone.
So my concept is Why spend on military stuff at the expense of the economy? With so many people out of work , is it wise to beef up the military? Or to create jobs for Singaporeans?
I feel that the government has lost its direction. Case in point is allowing SingTel to buy Optus. By doing so .. billions is leaving Singapore for UK (C&W is UK based) and plenty of aussies are keeping their jobs. The same money invested into Singapore, can bring better lives here.
Our military is strong enough to take on almost everyone in SEA. It does not need an upgrade. However, our economy needs one.
So what happens if we keep on spending 5% of our GDP on military while cutting the budget on other developments? Well, the Malaysians now have managed to build a world class port, develop a MSC that is slowly taking over companies from us (GE, Exxonmobile, BMW, Shell & DHL are gone), they have a F1 track, they improved their tourism, they have great car sales (60% of all vehicles sold in ASEAN is in Malaysia .. expect DamlherChrysler to shift out soon) Not to mention all the things their PRIVATE sector is doing. Why are we just worrying about our military being not good enough? -
den u tell tat to the govt...we r also working our ass off to feed our family..we come here just to tok abt things tat r we interesting in..Originally posted by kenhor:I believe that we have to look past "colonializm" as a pure military concept. True, in the past, our masters had to resort to armies to conquer. Nowadays, its a different ball game.
Dr M is not afraid of being invaded. He is afraid of his people totally dependant on foreign companies for jobs. That is the true strength of your own nation. When you can depend on your homegrown companies.
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan are countries that have thrown off the yoke of the new colonist. Sadly, Singapore is totally dependant on FDI to survive. If we were to be cut off from FDI, we will suffer. Same goes for Malaysia. They will sink if FDI is gone.
So my concept is Why spend on military stuff at the expense of the economy? With so many people out of work , is it wise to beef up the military? Or to create jobs for Singaporeans?
I feel that the government has lost its direction. Case in point is allowing SingTel to buy Optus. By doing so .. billions is leaving Singapore for UK (C&W is UK based) and plenty of aussies are keeping their jobs. The same money invested into Singapore, can bring better lives here.
Our military is strong enough to take on almost everyone in SEA. It does not need an upgrade. However, our economy needs one.
So what happens if we keep on spending 5% of our GDP on military while cutting the budget on other developments? Well, the Malaysians now have managed to build a world class port, develop a MSC that is slowly taking over companies from us (GE, Exxonmobile, BMW, Shell & DHL are gone), they have a F1 track, they improved their tourism, they have great car sales (60% of all vehicles sold in ASEAN is in Malaysia .. expect DamlherChrysler to shift out soon) Not to mention all the things their PRIVATE sector is doing. Why are we just worrying about our military being not good enough?
u can also start ur own thread on Singapore economy if u wan to...but u r in the wrong thread now my fren..
-
Kenhor
The reason for singapore's consistent spending on defense is so that rogue nations catching us with our pants down is minimised. True that the govt need to create jobs, but on the other hand she also need to ensure that there is firstly a country, a nation and a home to do that. There must never be a time for us to become complacent. Should that happen, it will be a kuwait scenario in SE Asia.
There could be hidden reason in buying Optus and it is not appropariate to discuss this here.
A strong military now will not remain unchallenged if a country armed forces does not upgrade her equipment. Imagine a scenario, if a war should break out in the distant future. Based on your argument, our army could be using antique weapons fighting the agressor who might be armed with the latest technology, very much like as archer armed with a bow and arrows against a rifleman with a modern rifle. Don't you think by that time, it will be too late to lament why we did not procure new equipment.
Judging from the current status of our northern and southern "neighbours". Do you think they are not eyeing us. If we did not have this weapons, do you think you and I will still be here discussing about this issue? Think about it.
Also without a strong military, singapore will never be a stable and safe country for foreign investments. And without this foreign investments, how can we improve our economy? With new weapons and technology, we can make use of these and opened new areas of research and production and that too does aid the economy in a way, don't you agree?
To summarise, beefing up our army and the economy are interlinked. One can't do without the other. -
i ask u all again..can any1 of u all prove this peice of website info is wrong?
The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks
------------------------------------------
www.geocities.com/vonchloride
------------------------------------------
Is a shocking discovery..u can either deny it or accept it..it's ur choice. -
no offenseOriginally posted by duotiga83:i ask u all again..can any1 of u all prove this peice of website info is wrong?
The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks
------------------------------------------
www.geocities.com/vonchloride
------------------------------------------
Is a shocking discovery..u can either deny it or accept it..it's ur choice.
its an obvious crap -
since u say is crap of info..can u prove it?
-
i cant...but can u??Originally posted by duotiga83:since u say is crap of info..can u prove it? -
btw...Osama was once CIA train during the Afgan Soviet war..tats the fact
-
n try not to get those conspiracy thingy get into ur mind too much...its bad for the health my fren
-
well i have full of websites...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-01-2002/ vo18no13_terrortrail.htm
emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/ editorials/smoking_gun.htm
www.likud.nl/extr214.html
www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just some of the websites i search in goggles during last mon.
well juz to make u think about it.....y now usa is so desperate to have a war with iraq. -
conspiracy or not..do u wan the truth?
-
aiyah..cos Bush senior got feud wif Saddam during Gulf warOriginally posted by duotiga83:well i have full of websites...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-01-2002/ vo18no13_terrortrail.htm
emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/ editorials/smoking_gun.htm
www.likud.nl/extr214.html
www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just some of the websites i search in goggles during last mon.
well juz to make u think about it.....y now usa is so desperate to have a war with iraq.
he kenot get his ass tat time..so now ask junior to go...lolz
tats one of the Theory -
then again y the junior bush hav no exoression when the agent wispher to him n say about the 1st crash n continu talk with the children?
u dun seem to to look at the websties i have, do u? or jus say out from wat u think? -
truth?? it almost one year since 911 happenOriginally posted by duotiga83:conspiracy or not..do u wan the truth?
do u think the citizen of America wan the truth after 1 year??
do they wan the truth??
have u ask them?
u wan the truth den u got it..the website its ur truth
think my fren think..after 1 year -
shld he go to the ground n cry??Originally posted by duotiga83:then again y the junior bush hav no exoression when the agent wispher to him n say about the 1st crash n continu talk with the children?
u dun seem to to look at the websties i have, do u? or jus say out from wat u think?
beg for mercy??
pray immediately??
he is the most powerful man in the world..the President of the United State(where most pple in the world hates)
u expect him to lose his cool in front of the tv??
think my fren think -
eh dude..gotta go supper man...chat wif u later
-
wat things happen must have an explaination of it....well war of terror will be a veri long war n the way u say after 1 yr of it, u dun seem to hav feelings 4 those who lost their lives so innocently. This is jus like a history...u gotta learn wat is it n how it happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
laser51088
09 September 2002 · 11:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wowie, I saw the site, the webmaster really went to pains to find all those info man...
however, pls also take some of these sites with a pinch of salt unless you are able to check up on everyone of his sources (i dun't think anybody got time to do so)
at the same time, i find his arguments pretty persuasive and his sources all official and public domain... he just pieced them together like what no one else did. Not sure if all is true, but once again, it LOOKS convincing... anyone want to check up on this site?
and I read a Reader's Digest article on the 1993 WTC bombing, was really damn scary... especially for those in basement, got pregnant women there too...
i heard the sentences were the predicted combined age that the victims who died could all have lived to if they had not been killed here... (unborn babies don't count) so basically, to cut a long story short, they got a life sentence after you add all the predicted lifespans of victims together...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes politics is not jus the way u think so gd all the time..always acting like hero...this is not a story book or novel.