VeeshanVault

Oh Yippie another Thread on War Vs AntiWar

double post, plz delete

Krimson Klaw wrote:media would love nothing more than to show us being slaughtered so they can get their pulitzer.

Says who? The media are, by and large, run by very conservative corporations and men. They'd like nothing more than to show us kicking the shit out of the Iraqis, so they can sell us the video games, the movies, the TV shows, and the image. Victory sells; defeat is a downer. And I'm sure they could give a fuck about the Pulitzer Prize. They'd rather be swimming in Nielsen ratings.

Also, if Americans were being slaughtered countlessly, don't you think the Iraqi media would be airing that just as they did the half dozen marines that were executed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like they ARE going on and on about how many Americans they're killing.

It's almost like you want us to be slaughtered so you can say I told you so, at least that's the way you come off.

That statement transcends ignorance, into the realm of offensiveness. I am genuinely offended that you would suggest such a thing, even in an offhand remark. Take a step back and discuss this situation realistically and logically. Don't resort to cheap shots like that one. "If you disagree with me, it's almost as if you WANT Americans to die!" Christ. That logic is just plain ugly.

Millie wrote:

Krimson Klaw wrote:media would love nothing more than to show us being slaughtered so they can get their pulitzer.

Says who? The media are, by and large, run by very conservative corporations and men. They'd like nothing more than to show us kicking the shit out of the Iraqis, so they can sell us the video games, the movies, the TV shows, and the image. Victory sells; defeat is a downer. And I'm sure they could give a fuck about the Pulitzer Prize. They'd rather be swimming in Nielsen ratings.

Also, if Americans were being slaughtered countlessly, don't you think the Iraqi media would be airing that just as they did the half dozen marines that were executed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like they ARE going on and on about how many Americans they're killing.

It's almost like you want us to be slaughtered so you can say I told you so, at least that's the way you come off.

That statement transcends ignorance, into the realm of offensiveness. I am genuinely offended that you would suggest such a thing, even in an offhand remark. Take a step back and discuss this situation realistically and logically. Don't resort to cheap shots like that one. "If you disagree with me, it's almost as if you WANT Americans to die!" Christ. That logic is just plain ugly.

It's the same as you stating AMericans are being slaughtered, but with no PROOF. It's not a matter of you wanting americans to die just because you disagree with me, I never said that and I based my comment on you stating americans were being slaughtered, yet you say it with zero proof. Again, if Americans were being slaughtered, Iraqi tv would be showing it, not spraying it.

If I offended you I am sorry you took it that way, it was not my intent, but I stand by what I said.

Deward wrote:

Chidoro wrote:When did al qaeda and saddam have anything to do with each other? What threat did saddam pose? 9-11 was a completely different animal. There is no relation between the two. Why is it America's job to save Iraq from it's leaders?

While there is no smoking gun. I believe there has been more than enough evidence to show a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I know that Osama hates Saddam but he hates America more and I think given the chance he would buddy up to Saddam to get some Americans.

Also Saddam has been very vocal about paying to the families of suicide bombers.

Saddam is going down one way or another. Hopefully it won't drag the rest of the midle east into the conflict. I think that once we have the Saddam regime busted down then we need to let the Iraqis handle their own affairs. Try and get legal elections as soon as possible. I also wouldn't mind seeing Iraq broken into three different countries, one for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.

If we want real peace though we need to withdraw all support from Israel and other arab countries. If we take a stance against sticking our noses where it doesn't belong then the arab countries will be much more tolerant of us. Our constant meddling in Israel and other middle east countries has caused most of these difficulties.

Of course none of these things will actually come to pass and I wouldn't be surprised if we went after Syria or Iran next.

Deward

What evidence are you talking about? You're Osama Saddam link is completely hypothetical. The whole, "He hates USA more" line doesn't jibe with me.

Suicide bombers in Israel is a totally different thing from US security. If Israel ever hand their hands untied as you suggest, I think you'd be surprised of the outcome (here's a hint, Israel will still be standing).In addition, Israel is definitely not an Arab nation.

Deward wrote:While there is no smoking gun. I believe there has been more than enough evidence to show a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

such as?

such as?

Stop asking stupid questions. The links are everywhere and obvious. It's a completely concrete case.

Fairweather Pure wrote:

such as?

Stop asking stupid questions. The links are everywhere and obvious. It's a completely concrete case.

hehe

There can never be such a thing as world peace. There is and always will be Have and Have Not's.

Millie wrote:What's sad is that we're probably losing this war just as badly as we lost Vietnam. There are probably countless untold American casualties right now, and the facts won't come in until years after the war is over.

The same thing happened during Vietnam. Every day, all the news reported was how many Viet Cong we killed, and how handily we were winning that battle. It was only years later that even the media couldn't keep blinders on in the midst of the horrific embarassment we were suffering.

i'm gonna have to use my, you have no fucking clue statement here...i know the exact figures...i can't say what it is but in the 1st 24 hours (1 day) Normady we lost over 500 troops...we haven't reached 3 figures and we're in like day 12. we haven't even reached 50.

Spangaloid_PE wrote:i'm gonna have to use my, you have no fucking clue statement here...i know the exact figures...i can't say what it is but in the 1st 24 hours (1 day) Normady we lost over 500 troops...we haven't reached 3 figures and we're in like day 12. we haven't even reached 50.

Coalition casualties as of March 31:

69 Killed
7 Captured
17 Missing


The coalition forces have not even reached Baghdad yet.


Just a FYI: Normandy is not in Vietnam.

The figures come out to right around 94 dead U.S. servicemen per week during the approx. 11 years we spent in Vietnam. Just something to think about. Of course, there's no way we'll be in Iraq that long, right?

miir wrote:

Spangaloid_PE wrote:i'm gonna have to use my, you have no fucking clue statement here...i know the exact figures...i can't say what it is but in the 1st 24 hours (1 day) Normady we lost over 500 troops...we haven't reached 3 figures and we're in like day 12. we haven't even reached 50.

Coalition casualties as of March 31:

69 Killed
7 Captured
17 Missing


The coalition forces have not even reached Baghdad yet.


Just a FYI: Normandy is not in Vietnam.

i didn't use Normandy because i thought it was in vietnam. and i see you were speaking of coalition forces combined.

now we're on the same page i guess.

US only:

43 Dead
7 Captured
17 Missing


*Missing* generally means killed in action but they have been unable to find a corpse.

So we can accurately say that the US has over 50 casualties.
Pretty scary to think that the 'dirty' fighting hasn't even really yet begun.

i didn't use Normandy because i thought it was in vietnam

Then why in the hell did you bring it up?
When having a discussion you usually present relative facts relating to your argument... not throw out completely unfuckingrelated factoids.

Says who? The media are, by and large, run by very conservative corporations and men. They'd like nothing more than to show us kicking the shit out of the Iraqis, so they can sell us the video games, the movies, the TV shows, and the image. Victory sells; defeat is a downer. And I'm sure they could give a fuck about the Pulitzer Prize. They'd rather be swimming in Nielsen ratings.

Obviously you haven't watched any of the war coverage. Only Fox News has been broadcasting with a pro-american slant. All the other networks constantly harp on negativity. This whole new "Did we underestimate the Iraqi resistance" thing was started by whom? The fucking media!

Open your eyes.

miir wrote:

i didn't use Normandy because i thought it was in vietnam

Then why in the hell did you bring it up?
When having a discussion you usually present relative facts relating to your argument... not throw out completely unfuckingrelated factoids.

as a comparison...we're talking about casualties in war right? i think the unfuckingrelated factiod is actually fuckingrelated

Spangaloid_PE wrote:

miir wrote:

Spangaloid_PE wrote:i'm gonna have to use my, you have no fucking clue statement here...i know the exact figures...i can't say what it is but in the 1st 24 hours (1 day) Normady we lost over 500 troops...we haven't reached 3 figures and we're in like day 12. we haven't even reached 50.

Coalition casualties as of March 31:

69 Killed
7 Captured
17 Missing


The coalition forces have not even reached Baghdad yet.


Just a FYI: Normandy is not in Vietnam.

i didn't use Normandy because i thought it was in vietnam. and i see you were speaking of coalition forces combined.

now we're on the same page i guess.

33 of those are by accidents and not from the feared Iraq war machine

Yeah right-I hate america when I point on some things which are wrong atm from the point of view of so many people all around the world. The world is so easy isn't it Mr. Simpleminds?

"If you are not with us you are with the terrorists" GWB

This one could easily go in the history as one of the most dumb statements a member of a government ever made and it says all about this ridiculous person. Speaking of a crusade was just one more thing which showed details about him and his lil world. Yeah, we all know-He and his nation are sent by god to heal the world-which is ridiculous itself-not to mention the fact that different cultures believe in other gods and that THIS is part of freedom. Sick person. Nuff said. But I guess your brain works like this too and you can't agree here. /shrug

I am so sick of repeating me over and over again. I already said that I like a lot about america-it's only that the current government is a shame for what it ever stands for in the past.
First I had to repeat me in all my last posts because you kept asking the same dumb question "what is your solution" like a parrot who only learned one sentence completely ignoring the fact that YOU are the one with no viable solution. I showed really a lot of patience here and tried to be as nice as possible. Sometimes I really wish my world would be so simple like yours is: "Hey, they are no proofs but doesn't matter-let's shoot 'em (bang) because Uncle George said so." That was silly enough.
You brainwashed, pathetic and patritoic losers want some names of real heros beside the idiots going to the army and use weapons because they have no other future? Here they are. They had more phantsy and wisdom than you ever will have Mr. Searyx because you are just so limited with your simple answers to complicated questions:

-Mahatma Gandhi
-Martin Luther King
-Mother Theresa

Only a few examples but...

...names like Napoleon, all the emperors of the roman empire, the crusaders or other warlords don't belong to this list from my point of view. They brought nothing but pain for very own egoistic reasons. And they caused all the problems we have today-yet another proof that war never ever worked. The real heros mentioned above changed something the diplomatic way against all resistances with very high personal risk-now that is heroic and impressive.

It remains your secret why you come along with Powell again-we already had that point in one of the former posts. It's no secret that he and the rest of the Administraion are liars. They were catched lying at least 3 times at the UN in the last months-I don't list the facts here because you can read them in international press and I already mentioned one example in one of my former posts. Of course they had dumb excuses like "we were cheated" but where is the point to lie at the world public with unproved secret sevivce "infos" about weapons in Iraq and such. How ridiculous could a secret service be? They lied and they knew it-that's basically it. They lie because of their very own interests like al the warlords did in the history. You have to create a building of lies around you so that you are not so ashamed of yourself and your actions that you commit suicide. Ok-I have to admit sometimes I start to believe that Bush really believes in the crap he says-in this case he has to search a doctor or some education. He was an alcoholic anyway so a therapy could help at least. But basically it's this: They make their own truth and dumb consumers like you "eat" it. I won't bother to read more of those lies-I already have read to many of them. It is wasted time like it is wasted time for the international journalists to sit in those daily briefings of the command headquarter in Qatar or listening to a biased Government speaker Fleisher who can easily be called to be the most disgusting member of the current administraion.
Some examples? So how does politics work? Listen and learn now.
Very simple work if you have citizens like #Rubi you give out headnews like this:
(#Rubi(dicous) is just a variable and stands for any dumb person with no own intellectual filter)

"Umm Kasr taken"
Idiots like #Rubi believe it

"Basra taken"
Idiots like #Rubi believe it

"An amount of 8000 elite guards surrender today"
Idiots like #Rubi believe it

"Chemical factory found in southern iraq"
Idiots like #Rubi believe it

and from the day before yesterday:
"high General of the elite guards arrested in Basr"
Idiots like #Rubi believe it

There are more examples from the time before the war has even started but that should be enough. Do some own research. Every single of these "headnews" was discovered as a lie the next or the following days. The problem is that idiots like #Rubi have already "eaten" it and somehting will be left in such simple minds. Another point is that they are so bad informed that they prolly never got in reach of the news which discover those lies. So, that's how it works.

If you really use independent international world press as information source you should know about this already anyway. The proof that you aren't using it is that I think your language skills end with your mother language. And don't use that silly argument that my english skills are not good enough to understand. I know about my english skills myself. I understand all-it's just that I can't express myself that perfectly like I am used to in my mother language-and yes I hate to make mistakes but at least you understand me I guess. Just like all my friends over there do and I don't have in the majority "sexual-only" relationsships to them. We speak to each other too...sometimes

You claim to have education and information while you obviously lack the core of it. No academic person would argue in those black/white patterns you are stuck to-like your president is. If it wouldn't be so tragic I would start laughing.

as a comparison...we're talking about casualties in war right? i think the unfuckingrelated factiod is actually fuckingrelated

No you meathead, Kyuokan made a comparison of Vietnam casualties to Operation Iraq Libearion (OIL) casualties.

You just pulled an unrelated factiod about Normandy out of your ass for moron shock value.

Want me to pull a completelyunfuckingrelated factoid out of my ass about civilian casualties in Nagasaki and compare that to Iraq?



spin spin spin

I would just like to point out that you guys have Searyx arguing with you on your side. That is all.

33 of those are by accidents and not from the feared Iraq war machine

They aren't even in Baghdad yet.... the coalition forces can't even hold Um Qasr.... sadly, there will be many more casualties before the US forces pull out of Iraq.

Krimson Klaw wrote:I would just like to point out that you guys have Searyx arguing with you on your side. That is all.

I don't know what's more disturbing....that, or the fact that you don't have Saeryx on ignore.

I don't know what's more disturbing....that, or the fact that you don't have Saeryx on ignore.

Haha. I couldn't agree more.

you guys toss around those caustly numbers like there nothing, they were acutally people that gave there lives for there country. and secondly it doesnt really matter what the fuck you librel pussies say cause no one gves a shit.

Wow, that was insightful.


What do you call heavy casualties?


I wouldn't be surprised at a final count of 300-400 dead from the Iraqi conflict (on the coalition side that is. Iraqi casualties are much ahrder to asses and will take a long time to pin down).


Is that a high number? Out of 300,000 or so troops participating? Try it as a percentage and see what you think.

I wouldn't be surprised at a final count of 300-400 dead from the Iraqi conflict

Regardless if you are pro or anti war, I think we all hope the casualties don't run that high. Once the troops actually reach Baghdad, we will see much higher troop casualties.

Is that a high number? Out of 300,000 or so troops participating? Try it as a percentage and see what you think

No matter how you spin it, you can't put it in a good light.
For what many feel is an unnecessary war, any casualties are too many.

I'm not spinning it at all.


I agree, a human life is a precious thing. I like to think that's why we are in Iraq right now.


So by your definition we have already sustained 'heavy' casualties?

I read several longwinded reports about how Germany is planning an attack on France as we speak. Apparently, Germany has been building more and more nuclear weapons, trying to perfect their technique and make a reported "Super Bomb" to be used, as a very high important government official said, "To destroy the evils of the world, namely the French".

Links to the article can be found at http://www.un.org as well as http://www.bbc.org and http://www.cnn.com

Check out those articles, you ignorant fuck. I can't believe you don't know this shit already!

Saeryx are you on crack dude?

I'm not spinning it at all.

Is that a high number? Out of 300,000 or so troops participating?
Try it as a percentage and see what you think

Hehe, that's a blatant spin.
I didn't mean it as a flame but when you try to minimise the shock of military deaths by looking at it in the best light possible, you're spinning it.

You gotta admit that 0.1% casualties sounds a lot better than 400 dead.

So by your definition we have already sustained 'heavy' casualties?

Nah... you know my opinion about this invasion.
I think any US, UK or Iraqi casualties are too many.

Searyx wrote:
Links to the article can be found at http://www.un.org as well as http://www.bbc.org and http://www.cnn.com

nice links.

Pointing out that using the term "heavy" is not warrented is spin?


Believe me, I am not trying to minimize the loss. I am trying to make sure that the power of a word is not ignored.

The deaths in Iraq on both sides are horrible. They are not "heavy".

Pointing out that using the term "heavy" is not warrented is spin?

I'm boggled.....You're the only one who has mentioned or discussed the word 'heavy' in this thread.

Damn. You're right.


Too many posts today, I am getting lost.


Millie,


In reference to your post about other governments being worse:

1. Other governments being 'worse' does not make the government of Iraq 'better'.

2. The leaders of Mexico and Saudi Arabia weren't stupid enough to paint a big red bulls-eye on their foreheads and stand up in front of the international community yelling "SHOOT ME!".

Krimson Klaw wrote:It's the same as you stating AMericans are being slaughtered, but with no PROOF.

I offer as proof the constant news reports from the front lines of our men and women being killed in droves. A dozen or more die each day, be it to ambush, attack by Iraqi soldiers in civilian garb, or even equipment malfunctions. Those are lives that are being lost for what, in my opinion, is a pointless cause in the first place.

Obviously no one will know the total death toll until the war is over. But drawing parallels to Vietnam is not out of the question. As I mentioned before, nobody thought we were losing Vietnam until it became blatantly obvious, and the fact could no longer be hidden from sight. If that scenario takes place in Iraq, don't expect to see the real death counts for at least a few months, if not a year.

Fallanthas wrote:1. Other governments being 'worse' does not make the government of Iraq 'better'

Congratulations on ENTIRELY missing the point of my post. The point wasn't that Iraq is somehow humanitarian in comparison to other regimes. The point was that it's hypocritical to claim "liberation" is the real reason we're going to war with Iraq, when we have countless allies whose governments are equally unjust and barbaric.

Fallanthas wrote:2. The leaders of Mexico and Saudi Arabia weren't stupid enough to paint a big red bulls-eye on their foreheads and stand up in front of the international community yelling "SHOOT ME!".

First thing's first: George W. Bush painted the bullseye on Saddam. He picked the target, and he's waging a personal war against Iraq. Don't speak of the "international community," when we and Great Britain are the only two countries in the world committing fully to the fight. This is not the world vs. Saddam. This is Bush vs. Saddam. There is a significant difference between the two.

Lastly, I wonder why we have decided that Saddam is somehow acting any differently now than he was 12 years ago. He's been harassing weapons inspectors and defying UN resolutions for more than a decade. How is he more dangerous now than he was in 1992 -- when he was far better armed, more violent, and in command of a larger army?

The point is that this war is entirely arbitrary. Saddam has been the same old Saddam for years; it's Bush who's gone all gung-ho for this war.

Millie wrote:

Fallanthas wrote:1. Other governments being 'worse' does not make the government of Iraq 'better'

Congratulations on ENTIRELY missing the point of my post. The point wasn't that Iraq is somehow humanitarian in comparison to other regimes. The point was that it's hypocritical to claim "liberation" is the real reason we're going to war with Iraq, when we have countless allies whose governments are equally unjust and barbaric.

well, it all has to do with what the country has to offer us once we "liberate" it. just my personal opinion.

Spangaloid_PE wrote:

Millie wrote:

Fallanthas wrote:1. Other governments being 'worse' does not make the government of Iraq 'better'

Congratulations on ENTIRELY missing the point of my post. The point wasn't that Iraq is somehow humanitarian in comparison to other regimes. The point was that it's hypocritical to claim "liberation" is the real reason we're going to war with Iraq, when we have countless allies whose governments are equally unjust and barbaric.

well, it all has to do with what the country has to offer us once we "liberate" it. just my personal opinion.

Which, in Iraq's case, is oil. Thanks for proving my point.

do you think the US goes all over the world liberating countries just for the hell of it?

Spangaloid_PE wrote:do you think the US goes all over the world liberating countries just for the hell of it?

Once again, you're arguing in my favor. My point in this thread was that the U.S. is NOT in this war to liberate the Iraqis; it's in this war to gain control of an oil-rich territory. I was saying that I was sick of seeing people claim this was a humanitarian war, or that 'liberating' the Iraqis is really at the core of anything going on here. Obviously that's just a bullshit excuse.

You seem to agree with me on that count, so I wonder why you're arguing with me. Are you just illiterate?

sarpranous wrote:you guys toss around those caustly numbers like there nothing, they were acutally people that gave there lives for there country. and secondly it doesnt really matter what the fuck you librel pussies say cause no one gves a shit.

Yeah, there wouldnt be any casualties if we didnt go to war. People say that we should stand behind out troops now that they've gone to war, perhaps the best way to stand behind our troops is not to send them into unnecessary combat.

Sorry, wanted 100 posts.

the U.S. is NOT in this war to liberate the Iraqis; it's in this war to gain control of an oil-rich territory

You're an idiot.

There is no one single reason for this war. There are many reasons. Oil is not the predominate one.

Congratulations on ENTIRELY missing the point of my post. The point wasn't that Iraq is somehow humanitarian in comparison to other regimes. The point was that it's hypocritical to claim "liberation" is the real reason we're going to war with Iraq, when we have countless allies whose governments are equally unjust and barbaric.

You just said that the point wasn't that Iraq was a good government, then made your point by pointing out others are worse?


I didn't miss your point Millie. Your point is flawed.

Lastly, I wonder why we have decided that Saddam is somehow acting any differently now than he was 12 years ago. He's been harassing weapons inspectors and defying UN resolutions for more than a decade. How is he more dangerous now than he was in 1992 -- when he was far better armed, more violent, and in command of a larger army?

Ok.

At what point do you agree that current measures aren't working. A decade? Two? A century?

Fallanthas wrote:

Congratulations on ENTIRELY missing the point of my post. The point wasn't that Iraq is somehow humanitarian in comparison to other regimes. The point was that it's hypocritical to claim "liberation" is the real reason we're going to war with Iraq, when we have countless allies whose governments are equally unjust and barbaric.

You just said that the point wasn't that Iraq was a good government, then made your point by pointing out others are worse?


I didn't miss your point Millie. Your point is flawed.

Once again, you just don't seem to get it. Here, let me spell it out for you again:

THE POINT: This war isn't about liberating the Iraqis. If freeing the Iraqis from oppression really WERE the reason why we're invading Iraq, why aren't we 'liberating' any of the other people with whom we have dealings? Claiming this war is about liberating the Iraqi people is a bullshit spin excuse at worst, and hypocritical at best.

There. Please refer to the section of this post entitled "The Point" when hammering out your response. If your response addresses anything other than "The Point," you still don't get what I'm saying.

Fallanthas wrote:At what point do you agree that current measures aren't working. A decade? Two? A century?

How is Saddam any different now than he was 12 years ago? How is he any more of a threat now than he used to be? He certainly hasn't caused any problems for us in 12 years (and no, he was NOT the man behind 9/11). Why, all of the sudden, is he worth taking out now? Can you answer those questions, rather than skirting them?

Sure, he's an oppressive dictator. But then again, so are many people out there -- some of whom we are very friendly with. Once again, see: The Point if you're confused about that.

And you did it again.


Millie, you cannot argue that other countries, dictators, whatever being worse in any way invalidates the fact that the world will be a better place without Saddam in it.

Once again, I did not miss your point at all. Your point is based on a flawed logic that says "Start with the guys at the top of the list and proceed to the bottom".

The world does not work that way. You deal with what issues you can, when you can. By your logic I should forget about making my car payment and concentrate on retiring my mortgage because I owe more on the house.

Millie, you cannot argue that other countries, dictators, whatever being worse in any way invalidates the fact that the world will be a better place without Saddam in it

I don't see Millie, or indeed anyone, making that argument. If you read Millie's posts and think this is the question you are misreading them.

Once again, I did not miss your point at all. Your point is based on a flawed logic that says "Start with the guys at the top of the list and proceed to the bottom"

Not even nearly. I have no idea where you got this idea.

The 'point' is that if the US was so concerned about liberating oppressed people it would not have started with Iraq, nor would it maintain it's ties with several of it's "allies" who are just as oppressive as Saddam if not more so.
Therefore we can assume that the "liberation" justification is not true, as the US government's continued association with unsavoury governments proves them to be hypocritical.
So we must look elsewhere for justification for this war. Liberation of the Iraqi people is just a fringe benefit but it sounds great on TV.

The 'point' is that if the US was so concerned about liberating oppressed people it would not have started with Iraq, nor would it maintain it's ties with several of it's "allies" who are just as oppressive as Saddam if not more so.

Congrats on saying the SAME FUCKING THING OVER AGAIN!!!


Who says we need to start at any specific point? Once again, you are making an assumption based on flawed logic. There is no list. Think about it.

First thing's first: George W. Bush painted the bullseye on Saddam. He picked the target, and he's waging a personal war against Iraq. Don't speak of the "international community," when we and Great Britain are the only two countries in the world committing fully to the fight.

You seem to have a bit of a problem with modern history.


Saddam painted the bullseye on his own forehead by first invading a neighboring country, then thumbing his nose at the United Nations (i.e. the diplomatic community) for over a decade.

Like I told Kooky in another thread, put your GW hate away, it's making you look foolish.

In about 6 months, Saddam went from being a powerless nusiance in the middle east for nearly 10 years to 'Public Enemy #1' and the biggest threat to American Homeland Security since the Russians in the cold war... thanks to George W Bush and his spin doctors.