Is Bush's Terror War to protect America....

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, the 'war on terror' is a lot like the 'war on drugs'. As it looks now, both will be never-ending and impossible to 'win'. Our fighting this 'war' only makes it more difficult to find and defeat the enemy. We can't just give up and ignore the problem; but we can't expect a clear endpoint, either.

In both cases, the best solution may not be the 'war' in its current form, but some other action that gets more to the root problem instead of attacking the symptom.
 
understand that terrorism is the fault of terrorists and illegal immigrants are the fault of illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

So then it doesnt really matter which party is in office then does it? The terrorists will still be killing people and the illegal immigrants will still be crossing our borders.
 
sure, why not...

which do you pick, the puppet on the left, or the puppet on the right?

the "dumbass liberal" mud-slinging is typical of retarded-ass conservatives; think outside the box...both sides are an illusory paradigm used to keep sheep believing that politicians actually give a **** about what they think.

I know good ol' boys like to support Repugnicans, but R's only really support people who actually own property and wealth; trailers and piggy banks don't count.

as for this "war on terror" ... nothing makes me smirk more than moronic sheep who spout crap like "we have to get them over there, before they get us here". Those people should just stay in bed, or build an underground shelter, so as to protect themselves from terrorists/aliens punking them out, making them their b!tches.

Troops defend our freedoms?? pfft... maybe back in 1776

'cause they sure as hell don't fight for our independence from BP.
 
You isolationists still don't believe that there really are terrorists who want to kill Americans (any and all Americans). So be it. If I knew who you were, I would just let the terrorist dogs have you and I can just read about it in the newpaper or watch it on CNN. When bombs start blowing up here, you will be the first to point your finger at the president and say something like "Why didn't you see it coming? You're a bad bad president!" Look at the Katrina in New Orleans.... you blame the problem on the president. What happened to the LA Governor? Responding to hurricanes and other disasters is their job and the Federal government just is there mostly to write checks. Things in New Orleans are so bad, but you don't even hear about all the damage in Florida from last year's hurricanes. Why? Florida is handling it.

I pose this question to you all... What would the world be like if the US had done nothing in Iraq or let al Qaeda slide after blowing up a couple of buildings to show 'em who's the boss? Would there be a danger to the US? How does Iran fit into this? North Korea, same deal? Oh let's not forget.... WWII was called Roosevelt's war? What if we had done nothing there? What would the world be like today?
 
The problem for you "Bush consolidating power" theorists is that there really IS a terror war. Whatever people may believe about "weapons of mass destruction", there absolutely ARE a LOT of Muslims trying to blow up and kill Americans and any non-Muslim people all over the world.
Or are people trying to say that all these bombings and foiled plots are made up by Bush?
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks that craziness around these parts.
What *I'm* saying is that his policies are self-serving, ineffective, and illegal.

Yes. We are at "war" with terrorists. Yes, they are real. There are many ways to fight them and some of them are even legal and effective. That's why I consider your line of reasoning to be a false-choice construct; you propose that we have to either do it his way or not at all.
 
During WWII, there were many privacy and Constitutional "violations" going on, not the least of which was the imprisonment of American Japanese until after the war was over.
It could be argued that, during that time, the government was "consolidating power" for later on. But gee whiz, lo and behold, the war ended and all of a sudden, the Japanese went back to their homes and life carried on.
Click to expand...

And that was a time when we were fighting a visible enemy, with terrorism it's much harder because they are not men of nations. As for those people who are into partyline thinking, they should really wake up and see that Republicans and Democrats are no good! I firmly believe that government transparency and accountability are something we as a society have lost. We're more than willing to give up our Bill of Rights for security, I'm sure Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave a thousand times over. We allow human rights violations to continue yet "we're fighting the good fight, bringing peace to the Middle East, and promoting democracy":barf: If that was really the case, then Bush should have given the "enemy combatants" some type of military tribunal access, and his cronies certainly wouldn't allow the use of black sites. After all this is a "war on terror". That's the other thing many Republicans seem to fail to realize, perpetual conflicts like "war on drugs" and "war on terror" don't make sense, especially in the long run. (Just curious was it the Republicans or the Democrats that started the "war on drugs"?) Oh yeah, and if national security was such an important issue why is our border still a great place for illegals to cross through? If our objective is to prevent terrorism, WHY ARE OUR BORDERS NOT SECURE?!


Epyon

EDIT: To 22-rimfire, the hurricanes that hit here repeatedly were mostly lower category storms 3 or less, yes there was damage but understand that within the timeframes between each hurricane we were busy rebuilding and preparing for one after the other. (I think by the 3rd storm people got sick of it and just continued life as usual instead of staying huddled inside.) Florida was pretty much finished repairing much of the damage fairly quickly because our losses weren't as bad as Louisiana.
 
On the transparency issue, this has been a prepetual issue between the press and the government. From my prespective, there are some things I would just prefer not to know about. But I do want to believe that the government is doing everything that is prudent to protect the country as a whole from terrorists. Everything eventually comes out in our "transparent" government; it just takes time.

"After all this is a "war on terror". That's the other thing many Republicans seem to fail to realize, perpetual conflicts like "war on drugs" and "war on terror" don't make sense, especially in the long run." Well... what do you propose as a solution? Do the terrorists only fight in the short term or is it always the long term? You resist the enemy for as long as it takes!

We should control our borders NOW. I really don't care if there is an all-encompassing plan to deal with the illegal alien problem. The biggest problem is the borders are porous, extremely porous. Fix that first and the politicans can debate for the next 5 years how to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal aliens currently in the US. I would prefer to keep it at 12 million rather than having it 20 or 25 million in 10 years. Build the fence and patrol it with prejudice.
 
Polymer,

Of course most politicians don't give a rat's behind about we think. Does anyone really think Kerry with his 5 mansions and 2 billionaire widow/wives really cares about us? Or any Repub or Dem on the take really has OUR interests at heart? But they DO generally have certain distinguishing, defining traits and track records that let you discern one from the other. Despite any mud-slinging, it is not hard to find one or two, or a group, to align yourself with. Us retards who prefer strong military to weak, strong intelligence to weak, self-responsibility to self-entitlement, strong patriotism to strong globalism, decisive action instead of appeasment, support for our country, our troops and our citizens instead of a coddling of the enemy, good morals, good women, fine guns, and the freedom and the life (safety) to enjoy them all - can find a few politicians who think the same way. Typically they tend to be conservatives.

If pointing out facts and distinctions is mud-slinging so be it, but a little HONEST education never hurt anyone. I too am willing to learn thruths. Although they do tend to help strike a balance with neo-cons, once you realize that liberals are a danger to this nation and to its people, its not hard to find real faults and selfish reasons with/for their ideals and motives....and so "dumb" is being kind.
 
I don't know if the war in Iraq has made us safer or not, but I know each time I have been there. I have seen a lot of dead and captured foreign fighters, the captured ones all say that they were there to kill Americans and if it weren't for Iraq they would have had to travel much more to get to us. Also I have been to two of the old regime's major terror training camps that supposedly didn't exist.
 
...Good post CT - except for a fact or 2...
Click to expand...

Got any documentary evidence to prove that what you say is actually true? Or just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick?

Besides which, how does any of what you've posted argue that we should NOT be fighting terrorists, but instead should be invading other countries with the goal of replacing their governments?
 
Didn't you read the post, the info in quotes? It states the various confirmed & documented sources. Or are you asking if I have the actual documents? (In that case - no).

according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence

And thanks STLRN - " Also I have been to two of the old regime's major terror training camps that supposedly didn't exist." A 1st hand account right here.



None of it argues that we should NOT be fighting terrorists - quite the countrary...because "the harboring and supporting (which would obviously include TRAINING) of terrorists" was a major reason for going into Iraq, as well as the Clinton mandate of regime change policy for that nation, the Al Qaeda connection, the development and use of WMDs, the failure to meet numerous UN sanctions, the attempted assination of Bush Sr., etc etc. all which were also true.
 
So just because some guy calling himself "shield20" says it on the internet, I should believe it?

And the reason we invaded Iraq was WMD's, remember? The (drawings of) mobile labs? The "chemical belt around Baghdad"? Then it was "democracy", and to "free the people".

It didn't become "to fight them over there, instead of fighting them over here" until sometime in 2004, IIRC...
 
The funny thing is there were WMDs in the country. They had a thing on Fox a while back when a Senator and Congressmen had pushed through declassification of a report that stated over 500 seperate rounds containing WMDs were found. What do you think the Democrates on the panel said, "we knew he had WMDs, but these weren't the WMDs we went to war for."


When I was a Battery CO, OIF 1, the battalion I was part of captured an Al Samoud Missle that had a liquad warhead on it. We had to go to MOPP 4 and guard the thing until it was turned over to a sensative site explotation team. We were later told the warhead was a bug spray one, who put a bug spray warhead on a tactical missile? The strangest thing if you read any of the Iraqi survey group reports you will find quite a few finds of a lot of 55 Gallon type drums intially thought to be Nerve Agent that later tested as bug spray in Iraq ASPs throughout the country, often these were found next to empty means of delivery.

It really makes sense if you know about the Iraqi chemical weapons program. Iraq use to make its own nerve gas at the Yugoslavian manufactured Super Phosphate plant in Al Q'iam. Iraq nerve agents were know to be of low quality and dubious purity levels. You take somewhat weak agents and then store them Iraqi style, open air ASPs in which they experience daily heating and cooling over a 10 plus year period, and it is very conceivable that what started off as Nerve agents on the weak side turns in to what would functionally be bug spray. Which if anyone knows anything about G agents (the first nerve gases made by Germany) they were developed in a search for bug spray.
 
Well some bug sprays are weak organophosphates, aka Nerve Gas.

But that begs the question, why store 55 gallon drums of it in Ammo Supply Points (ASPs) and why putting it into tactical warheads of missiles? Having been in country many times, I will attest they have a bug problem, but not that bad of one to put bug spray on top of missiles or to keep so much of in in military ASPs.
 
I remember hearing that one of the reasons that Saddam was always trying to beat his chest to the international community was to look strong against the Iranians. There may be something to that or I overheard it in conversation. Does it sound reasonable to anyone else?
 
shield,
I hear what you're saying as well, but all their track records say (including Bush's, which is quite inconsistent with public interest) is that they serve their respective interest groups quite well.

Would a real moral person loosen pollution restictions time and time again? The U.S. can't even abide by the Kyoto agreement...that's pretty sad, for a developed nation.

make no mistake about it...this isn't the 80's, the global warming trend is far more of a global threat now, than terrorists pepetuating a holocaust. Think about that next time you fill up your SUV, or shop at Wal-Mart. Clinton started a fire (by opening free trade with China), and Bush just threw gasoline in it
 
Polymer


Kyoto treaty pollution control treaty is the biggest piece of crap every put on paper, it allows every other country in the world to continue or increase their pollution and to sell those rights to develop world. It is meant as socialist check on the western world and wealth transfer. Most countries that signed the treaty, don't even abide by it.

Or are you referring to the loosing on Arsenic in water standards? You know the rescinding of the new standards established by the Clinton Administration days prior to leaving office? Apparently the previous standard which had been in effect for something like 50 years wasn't good enough and despite being in office for 8 plus years they could only get around to the change a day or so before leaving office. Is is possible that they knew it was cost prohibitive to try to reduce arsenic levels below the current acceptable levels and the weak minded would just latch on to the title and not actually find out the facts.

I cannot believe that you believe the same people who when I was a kid warned of global cooling and whose computer models cannot predict weather accurately several weeks out can predict accurately decades out. Hell last week I read they said the global warming was responsible for in increase in polar ice caps, the exact thing they warned would be melted by the warming in their predictions just a year prior. What a F'n joke.


The most troubling thing is people believe just because the title of the treaty or law is what it is actually about. Kind of like the 1994 Crime Control Law, you know AKA the assault weapons ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top