"Suck it." G.W.B to the American Public

[PuppetMaster]

Should I blame the Government?
Should I blame the Media which extols the Governments lies?
Or should I blame the public for allowing Dubbya to piss in their mouths?

War on Terrorism?

How can you fight a war on terror? After the first attack in 1993, Clinton, by taking no extreme actions and for the most part doing nothing, magically prevented another attack for 8 years.

Now, the television set tells me that Bush has prevented another terror attack? This logic is ridiculous. Jupiter didn't explode last night, so technically he also prevented that from happening.

9/11 couldn't have been prevented. And guess what, it wasn't even that amazing of a feat. What did 9/11 take? Nineteen brain washed idiots, visas, some cash, and pilot training. Thetas what happened.

If Clinton Nuked the Middle East would it have been prevented? Absolutely not.

Terrorism must be treated as a crime, not a war. You cannot fight a war against an imaginary opponent.

Instead, Bush and Ashcroft, politely asked the American public to bend over while they violently ass rape our civil rights.

The Patriot Act, which is only supposed to be temporary (LMFAO), rips the Bill in Rights in half. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th Amendments have been destroyed.

We are left in a constant state of panic, waiting for that inevitable attack -- that same inevitable attack that has been looming since 9/11.

And guess what, that attack will come.
And guess what, it cant be prevented.
And guess what, in 2045 there will still be inevitable attacks.
Cause guess what, the US is creating MORE terrorists as we speak with their imperialist motives.

[censored] YOU GEORGE BUSH. BURN IN HELL

Edit- I left something out. With terrorism never ending, The Patriot Act will always be needed. This is no longer a democratic nation. I will be leaving it shortly.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Or should I blame the public for allowing Dubbya to piss in their mouths?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! When I was at Yale I used to get into some pissing matches, but nothing like you describe.

Well, let me go back and read the rest of your ridiculous rant.


W

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism must be treated as a crime, not a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how Clinton treated it. He even once said that we could not take Osama into custody because he hadn't committed a crime yet. Well, that approach worked real well. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

LINK (http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html), and Another LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp)

W

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism must be treated as a crime, not a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how Clinton treated it. He even once said that we could not take Osama into custody because he hadn't committed a crime yet. Well, that approach worked real well. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

LINK (http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html)

W




[/ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance surprises me Dubbya (well not really).

Bin Laden is a terrorist. He is one man. This is all, but you and the media have created this illusion that by capturing him all our problems would be solved. The American pubic think that life is just like the movies, and bought it.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Bin Laden is a terrorist. He is one man. This is all, but you and the media have created this illusion that by capturing him all our problems would be solved. The American pubic think that life is just like the movies, and bought it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. We go after the individual, but also the entire group. Remember this Thread? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=605845&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

We would get nowhere if we treated this only like a crime. After all the 19 terrorists of 9/11 are all dead. "So I guess the crime is solved, and we can go back to twidling our thumbs." - Is this what you think?

W

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
We would get nowhere if we treated this only like a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wouldn't be able stamp all over peoples civil liberties. Now make it a war and anything goes. Still, keep the people scared, it's worked for all previous administrations.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I blame the Government?
Should I blame the Media which extols the Governments lies?
Or should I blame the public for allowing Dubbya to piss in their mouths? ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess: Community College. Rhetoric. Mid-Term. C minus.

[MMMMMM]

Well YOU may not think the war on terrorism is a "war", but the terrorists don't share your view. They have indeed declared a "war" on the West and particularly on the USA.

Matter of fact this is World War IV: the war of totalitarian Islamists versus the rest of civilization.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that our civil liberties have probably been too fat trampled, and that certain portions of the Patriot Act should probably be revised or eliminated (other portions are good and necessary IMO). I think we should be fighting the war overseas even more vigorously however.

[jdl22]

Not to sound too Clintonian but it really depends on what your definition of war is.

If you think war is a military conflict between two or more nations, all of whom have declared war or at least acknowledged that they are in said conflict, then no the war on terror is not a war. In this sense we were at war with Afghanistan and then Iraq (it's a little cloudy whether we continue to be at war with them or not), but there can be no war on terrorism because the face of terrorism isn't represented by a country or even a group of countries. It is a movement brought about by a minority group in various countries. Unless a country or group of them sanctions such acts then war is technically not possible.

If you define war as a great struggle against a fierce and determined opponent that involves the use of military force then it clearly is a war.

Just depends on your definition.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Well YOU may not think the war on terrorism is a "war", but the terrorists don't share your view. They have indeed declared a "war" on the West and particularly on the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the terrorists use hyperbole, doesn't make it so. Both sides like you think its war because it makes it easier for them to brainwash.

[ QUOTE ]
Matter of fact this is World War IV: the war of totalitarian Islamists versus the rest of civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought the next great war would be so one-sided

[*Ryan_21*]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, Bush and Ashcroft, politely asked the American public to bend over while they violently ass rape our civil rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important sentence probably ever posted on 2+2. I suppose if Bush gets re-elected this year that it will probably be the last election our nation has for a long time. With another 4 years in office, Bush is such a tyrant and powerwarped that he will find a way to turn this country and his position into a dictatorship. I know this sounds crazy but it could happen, I mean hell, he already muscled his way into office in an election that he did not win. How the hell does that happen. His power, his ego, his tyranny know no bounds. He has basically trampled (or violently ass raped) all of our civil liberties. If he wins the next election we as a people will have no civil rights left. Not that we have very many right now anyway.

Ryan_21

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, Bush and Ashcroft, politely asked the American public to bend over while they violently ass rape our civil rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important sentence probably ever posted on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlikely.

Within my definition of rights is my right to feel safe in my everyday life. I can appreciate one's point of view that "civil rights" are absolute and should not be compromised. However, something known as the real world demands such compromise. Absolute rights are very simple to protect until you discover that at least one other person occupies the planet with you. From that point on, rights are constantly balanced with real-world conditions.

If my government is making an effort to protect me, I am willing to cooperate...even if my "civil rights" are diminished. As a matter of fact, my everyday life is so similar to that pre "Patriot Act" that I cannot tell the difference. Of course, I have experienced longer lines at the airport.

Of course, the real question is whether we are getting the proper return on giving up some of our "rights." I don't know, but I suppose there is always a better way to get the job done.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Well YOU may not think the war on terrorism is a "war", but the terrorists don't share your view. They have indeed declared a "war" on the West and particularly on the USA.

Matter of fact this is World War IV: the war of totalitarian Islamists versus the rest of civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is not a war in a traditional sense. Who are your opponents? How do you define them?

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean hell, he already muscled his way into office in an election that he did not win. How the hell does that happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why I try and educate those who refuse to accept facts/reality, but here goes.

Fact #1 - For 200 years, our country has used the Electoral College to determine the next President.

Fact #2 - GWB received the necessary number of electoral votes in 2000, and was legally (and properly) sworn in as President of the United States.

Fact #3 - In every re-count of the Florida votes performed by various newspapers, think tanks, government watch dog organizations, etc... GWB received more votes in Florida than did Al Gore.

The fact that Ryan and others refuse to recognize this doesn't change reality. GWB won the election fair and square.

[hetron]

You made a very important post. The bottom line is that the US needs to return to state where we make the government accountable for what is going on. The policy currently in place is way off and ill conceived. Many think the terrorists can be defeated with sheer military power. Many will be wrong.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact #3 - In every re-count of the Florida votes performed by various newspapers, think tanks, government watch dog organizations, etc... GWB received more votes in Florida than did Al Gore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dispute this

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Ryan and others refuse to recognize this doesn't change reality

[/ QUOTE ]

As I say I recognize this.

[ QUOTE ]
GWB won the election fair and square.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I have a problem with is the 1000's of people who were barred from voting in Florida under dubious circumstances. The vast majority of these would have voted Gore. Coincidence?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
What I have a problem with is the 1000's of people who were barred from voting in Florida under dubious circumstances. The vast majority of these would have voted Gore. Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it was known weeks in advance the whole election would come down to Florida and that the vote would be so close that it would be necessary to bar pro-Gore voters from the polls.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
After the first attack in 1993, Clinton, by taking no extreme actions and for the most part doing nothing, magically prevented another attack for 8 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just during the Clinton administration

January 23, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, opens fire on CIA employees on the street outside the agency's headquarters in Virginia. Kansi allegedly is angry about the treatment of Muslims in Bosnia; in retaliation, he had planned to get even by shooting up the CIA, the White House, and the Israeli embassy.

February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists truck-bomb the World Trade Center. The perpetrators had wanted to kill up to a quarter million people by toppling the twin towers like two dominos. Ramzi Yousef, the leader of the bombers, said they intended to inflict Hiroshima-level casualties as punishment for U.S. policies in the Middle East.

March 3, 1993: A bomb explodes in front of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, most likely in response to U.S. policy toward Serbia and Bosnia.

April 15, 1993: Seventeen Iraqis are arrested in Kuwait smuggling in a large car bomb and weapons as part of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush on his visit to Kuwait. President Clinton would later retaliate against Iraq for the plot with cruise missiles strikes against the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence, killing several Iraqi civilians.

June 1993: Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and other Muslims conspire to attack several New York landmarks all on the same day to inflict maximum casualties. As a sequel to the bombing of the World Trade Center, the group planned to blow up, on July 4, the headquarters of the U.N., the Lincoln and Holland tunnels under the Hudson River, the George Washington Bridge, and the federal government's main office building in New York. The group also planned to assassinate Senator Alfonse D'Amato and others. At the time they were arrested, the conspirators were mixing fertilizer and diesel fuel to create a bomb like the one used on the World Trade Center. Rahman and nine others were convicted in a public trial October 1, 1995.

July 1, 1993: Terrorists fire two rockets at the U.S. Air Force base at Yokota, Japan. The incident happens a few days before President Clinton is due to visit the base. The attacks are most likely from opponents of the U.S. military occupation of Japan.

July 7, 1993: Just six days later, four rockets are fired at the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force in Japan at Camp Zama, Japan.

October 3, 1993: After U.S. armed forces kill thousands of Somalians--an attack about which the commander of the operation, Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, told the press, "I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested"--al-Qaeda-trained Somalian tribesmen conduct ambushes of U.S. "peacekeeping" forces in Somalia. The attacks down two helicopters and kill 18 American Army Rangers, resulting in the infamous dragging of dead American soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu. An indictment alleges that al-Qaeda believes the United States has plans to occupy Islamic countries, as demonstrated by its involvement in Somalia and Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf War. U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Somalia, and bin Laden would later call the Somalia operation his group's greatest victory.

October 21, 1994: Members of Abu Nidal's organization are convicted of plotting to kill Jews in the United States, to blow up the Israeli embassy in Washington, and to kill anyone who exposed their plans.

February 7, 1995: Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is finally arrested in Pakistan. The arrest foils a plan already set in motion to bomb 12 U.S. jumbo jets in flight over the Atlantic and kill 4,000 passengers.

March 20, 1995: The Japanese apocalyptic cult Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme Truth) releases sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway. According to the group's beliefs, the last years of the millennium would give rise to an Armageddon between Japan and the United States, and the cult believed that attacking the Tokyo subway would hasten this Armageddon. The group was hoping to kill tens of thousands of people.

April 1995: Members of the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult plan a nerve-gas attack on Disneyland in Anaheim, California. The group plans to attack during a fireworks celebration at which attendance at the park would reach maximum capacity. Tipped off by Japanese police, U.S. authorities apprehend members of the group at the Los Angeles airport before they can launch the attack. The plan also called for an attack on petrochemical facilities in Los Angeles.The Aum Shinrikyo cult has assets of at least $1.2 billion and the capability to produce sarin and VX gas--agents that cause anthrax and botulism--and radiological weapons. This cult is still active.

August 18, 1995: The Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front bombs an office building of the American company Fluor Daniel in Santiago, Chile, citing as its reason solidarity with Cuba and opposition to the U.S. economic blockade.
September 13, 1995: A rocket-propelled grenade is fired at the U.S. embassy in Russia. The attack is suspected to have been retaliation for U.S. involvement in the NATO air strikes on Bosnian Serb targets.

November 13, 1995: A military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing U.S. troops is car-bombed, killing seven people, including five Americans, and wounding 42 others. Muslims seeking to overthrow the oppressive Saudi monarchy and expel the United States from Saudi Arabia carried out the bombings. Three groups, including the Islamic Movement for Change, claim responsibility, and U.S. officials suspect Osama bin Laden was involved.
November 15, 1995: An explosive device is discovered on a power line to a U.S. military complex in Sagmihara, Japan.

February 15, 1996: A rocket is fired at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, Greece, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and surrounding buildings. The State Department says the circumstances of the attack suggest it was another attack by the group known as November 17.
June 25, 1996: A U.S. military apartment complex, Khobar Towers, near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, is truck-bombed, killing 19 U.S. airmen and wounding 515 people, including 240 U.S. citizens. U.S. officials have linked Osama bin Laden to the bombing, and some analysts also suspect Iran of complicity.

February 23, 1997: A Palestinian, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, opens fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing and wounding several tourists before committing suicide.
July 31, 1997: Police in Brooklyn arrest two Palestinian men who allegedly are planning suicide bombings of the subway and a commuter bus.

November 12, 1997: Four employees of Union Texas Petroleum are killed in an attack one mile from the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. The Islamic Revolutionary Council and the Aimal Secret Committee claim the killings are revenge for the conviction of Mir Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani man who murdered CIA employees in their cars in January 1993.

December 23, 1997: The teachers' residential compound of the Karachi American School is fired upon. This attack is also probably in retaliation for the conviction of Mir Aimal Kansi.

April 3, 1998: November 17 claims responsibility for a rash of attacks against U.S. targets in Greece. Since 1975, its victims include a CIA station chief and three other Americans.

August 7, 1998: Simultaneous car-bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, both linked to Osama bin Laden, kill more than 200 Africans--mostly Muslims. Before the bombings, bin Laden issues a Fatwa that he will kill Americans and will not discriminate between military personnel and civilians. In retaliation, on August 20, 1998, the U.S. launches cruise missiles on bin Laden's al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan. The Clinton administration claims the Sudanese factory produced chemical weapons and was linked to bin Laden. This is later proven to be a lie, but it would not stop Clinton from declaring his own, although fragmentary, "War on Terrorism" in the midst of impeachment.

August 25, 1998: A Planet Hollywood restaurant in South Africa is bombed. A local terrorist group called Muslims Against Global Oppression is said to be the likely culprit, seeking revenge on the United States for the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.
August 26, 1998: A U.S. government information center in Pristina, Kosovo, is fire-bombed, most likely in opposition to U.S. and NATO policy on Kosovo.

Early September 1998: The Ugandan government and the FBI uncover a plot by Osama bin Laden to attempt to bomb the U.S. embassy in Kampala, Uganda, for a second time. Ugandan officials say that the cruise missile strike on Sudan in retaliation for the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania might have prompted bin Laden to try a second time to attack the embassy in Kampala. Several arrests are made in connection with the bombing.

October 2000: The USS Cole is dinghy-bombed while in port in Yemen. Al-Qaeda is widely suspected, in bin Laden's ongoing personal war against U.S. policies in the Middle East.

[MMMMMM]

So what if it isn't a war in the traditional sense: it's a new kind of war, then. The world changes. The opponents are those who seek to impose radical Islam by force and believe in violently attacking Western civilization and killing innocents in order to do so.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it was known weeks in advance the whole election would come down to Florida and that the vote would be so close that it would be necessary to bar pro-Gore voters from the polls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah your right I'm giving this administration far too much credit for having that sort of intelligence. I mean who knew Florida was going to be a touch and go state for either side, (apart from anyone who can read a newspaper that is).

BTW it wasn't the only state it happened in.

[MMMMMM]

Weren't there also some military personnel overseas who didn't get to vote in the Florida election?

This from Neal Boortz's web site today:

"Fox News Channel is reporting that the Pentagon has failed to fix the system that makes is it difficult for deployed American soldiers to vote in the presidential election. The problem is that 29 states require all absentee ballots to be sent and returned by mail. No other way. Military mail doesn't move fast enough to get the ballots to and from our soldiers overseas ... especially in war zones. The General Accounting Office says that the Pentagon is simply not doing enough to make sure that military members will be able to vote.

Republicans, naturally, are upset. But listen carefully to see if you hear anything from Democrats. One of the most disgraceful aspects of the 2000 election was Al Gore's campaign sending hoards or Democratic lawyers into virtually every every voting jurisdiction of Florida with one goal .. one assignment. They were there to do everything that they possibly could to make sure that votes from men and women serving in the U.S. military did not count in the election. Can you imagine if Republicans did that?"

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


I mean who knew Florida was going to be a touch and go state for either side, (apart from anyone who can read a newspaper that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute. I stated the whole election came down to Florida...that is considerably different to "touch and go." Yes, everyone KNEW FLA would be important.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
So what if it isn't a war in the traditional sense: it's a new kind of war, then. The world changes. The opponents are those who seek to impose radical Islam by force and believe in violently attacking Western civilization and killing innocents in order to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am saying that in this "war" the Bush team is making a serious mistake. Its policies, as pokerplayer pointed out above, just seems to make more people sympathetic to the opposition, making them want to join their cause. Do you still want to argue that the Iraqis see themselves as gratefully liberated by the US?

[Boris]

hey that's funny another idiot statement from MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Too bad your thougths bear absolutely no resemblance to actual facts or history. Please tell me one totalitarian islamist state we have waged war against besides the bush league Taliban, whom we seem to have temporarily inconvenienced but certainly not defeated.

[MMMMMM]

" Do you still want to argue that the Iraqis see themselves as gratefully liberated by the US?"

Yes, funny how we seem to get mostly just the bad news...

From the below excerpted piece:

"Most of the country is at peace. People are going about their business, living in freedom for the first time. There is more electricity and clean water than there was before the war. More children are going to school. Businesses are opening left and right. There is more health care available to the average Iraqi than there was under Saddam.

A recent poll shows that Iraqis are overwhelmingly glad Saddam is gone. Oxford Research International reports that that the three most-admired Iraqi officials are all members of the Iraqi Governing Council. This surely is bad news to the Baathist losers and al-Sadr. In fact, only one percent of Iraqis say that al-Sadr is the Iraqi leader they most trust.

Seventy-eight percent of Iraqis say that attacks on coalition forces are not acceptable. And 56% of Iraqis say that their lives are better now then they were under Saddam."


[b]Today's Nuze
Wednesday, April 7, 2004

WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ

There is intense fighting in several areas across Iraq. Some US Marines say that the fighting is more intense than any they faced last year prior to the fall of Saddam Hussein. Islamic radicals have seized control of at least one city and of a couple of bridges over the Euphrates River.

What's going on? Is this that civil war the detractors have been warning us about?

You could say that there are two new fronts in Iraq. As many as 12 U.S. Marines were killed yesterday in intense fighting in the western Iraqi town of Ar-Ramadi. Coalition officials say the attack was mounted by remnants of Saddam's ousted Baath Party. The insurgents took heavy casualties. This is on top of what happened last week in Fallujah, where four civilian security guards were killed and mutilated.

We also have the insurgency being led by a chubby little radical Islamic Cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr. al-Sadr is the son of an Islamic Ayatollah who was murdered by Saddam Hussein. You would think he would be appreciative of the efforts of the coalition. Not so. al-Sadr isn't quite old enough to have earned respect as an Islamic leader ... so he is determined to claim that position through rhetoric and violence. It was his newspaper that was shut down by coalition forces two weeks ago ... shut down because it was calling for the murder of American civilians and soldiers wherever they could be found.

So al-Sadr has decided that now is the time for him to send his militia out to drive the Americans from Iraq. At the present time, al-Sadr is said to be barricaded in his offices in Najaf. He is surrounded by armed supporters. Isn't it a good thing when these radicals gather together in one place? Are these "supporters," really members of Sadr's private army, not vulnerable to a few well placed laser-guided bombs?

If the coalition shows some guts ... and every indication is that it will .. al-Sadr and his militia will be pretty much history in a few days, as will the remnants of the Baathist regime currently making its last stand.

The radical elements in Iran are afraid. They're there ... and they know much better than most Americans that the war in Iraq has been an incredible success. Most of the country is at peace. People are going about their business, living in freedom for the first time. There is more electricity and clean water than there was before the war. More children are going to school. Businesses are opening left and right. There is more health care available to the average Iraqi than there was under Saddam.

A recent poll shows that Iraqis are overwhelmingly glad Saddam is gone. Oxford Research International reports that that the three most-admired Iraqi officials are all members of the Iraqi Governing Council. This surely is bad news to the Baathist losers and al-Sadr. In fact, only one percent of Iraqis say that al-Sadr is the Iraqi leader they most trust.

Seventy-eight percent of Iraqis say that attacks on coalition forces are not acceptable. And 56% of Iraqis say that their lives are better now then they were under Saddam.

Now this may not get reported in the States. After all, it isn't exactly good news for Democrats. But you can bet those who want to disrupt coalition plans and seize control of Iraq for one faction or another know the numbers. They're getting desperate. They know that power is scheduled to be handed over to the Iraqi governing council on June 30th, and they don't like that one bit. The Islamic terrorists want all the power to rule as they see fit, and they aren't the list bit interested in the freedom of speech and freedom of religion guaranteed in the new Iraqi Constitution. They hate democratic processes. They want it their way, and we're not letting them have it.

Cut and run? Pull our troops out now? Sure ... that would be a wonderful idea, if, that is, you want the entire Middle East to descend into chaos. America cannot be safe from Islamic terrorism if it does not see this through.

Some people hate me saying this ... but this is World War IV, my friends. Fight it over there now, or fight it here later.

AND THIS JUST IN

American Marines are now in Fallujah ... collecting the garbage, so to speak, after last week's attack on four American civilian contractors. One reporter says that this is a rout for the Marines. We're told that the bodies of Iraqi insurgents are being stacked like cordwood. Good. Let them stay there and rot. A reminder of what will happen to those who test American resolve.[b]

[MMMMMM]

Boris, pay attention, please.

The radical Islamists are in many countries but they are united in their goals and hatreds. Are you saying that they can declare war on us (and they have) but we can't declare war on them?

By the way, the radical Islamist goons would be delighted to kill you personally simply because you are an American. Call it a war or call it a feud or call it whatever you like but their intent, words and actions are clear, and we will be making a big mistake if we do not continue to take the fight to them. If we concentrate solely on defense we will just be waiting to absorb the next big blow. To win it is necessary to play both offense and defense.

On a side note, why do so many of your other posts make sense but when you respond to me you seem to go off the handle a little bit? A form of tilt perhaps, or what? Or maybe you just don't like the unvarnished truth, or don't like me for some reason? Or maybe you think semantics involving the word "war" somehow is more meaningful than guns, bullets, planes used as bombs, trains blown up, and so forth. Rest assured, while we are debating the usage of the word "war", the Islamists are devising plans to kill me, you, your countrymen, and our allies. Call it a water-pistol fight if that sounds better to you but for all intents and purposes it is a life-and-death guerilla war in which the terrorists are playing by no rules.

[slamdunkpro]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Need a hand with your luggage? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Coilean]

[ QUOTE ]
Matter of fact this is World War IV ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Crap, when did I miss WW3?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
What I have a problem with is the 1000's of people who were barred from voting in Florida under dubious circumstances. The vast majority of these would have voted Gore. Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of the people in the Florida panhandle who did not vote because the media prematurely decided the race would have voted for Bush.

It was a close race, and the fact is, the majority of those who voted, voted for Bush.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

WWIII was the Cold War;-)

[Chris Alger]

In your list I count 17 terrorist incidents of varying severity against Americans somewhere in the world (maybe 18-20 if we include Somalia). In 8 years. That comes to around .006 incidents per day.

Compare this to the proud record of George H.W. Bush:

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif As of last November, U.S. troops in Iraq were being attacked by what the White House calls "terrorists" "an average of 30-35 times daily." CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/25/sprj.irq.main/). This menas that daily terrorist incidents have increased 50,000% under Bush, thanks exclusively to his war. U.S. causualties for the whole war surpassed 9,000 as of last November, with no end in sight.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif That's ignoring 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and all other terrorism against Americans worldwide.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif That's before the latest Shi'ite and Faluja uprisings in Iraq, the former of which is now drawing support from Shi'ites not affiliated with al-Sadr's militia and might portend the collapse of U.S. control over Iraq. In that event, it will prove, once again, that "terrorism works."

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif More ominously, a growing body of evidence portrays an almost unimaginable degree of incompetence within this administration regarding its ability to perform its primary task of protecting the country. This includes repeated gross intelligence failures; the serial disregard of warnings about 9/11; a critical anti-terror FBI investigation quashed; refusing to hold a single cabinet-level meeting about terrorism for almost 9 months; failing to convene his own appointed anti-terror panel even once; using 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq; grotesquely underestimating the scope of resistance to U.S. occupation, and on and on.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif As a result of the Iraqi war, the U.S. and Americans are hated throughout the world as never before, and will undoubtedly be subject to terror campaigns of increasingly devasting scope for the indefinite future. During that future, the technology of terror, especially nuclear terror, will almost certainly improve while means of preventing terror will decline, owing to the increasingly fluid movement of labor and materiel across borders.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif The Bush administration is also tainted by a kind of political paralysis that prevents it from even addressing the problem of terrorism in a rational fashion. Instead, it relies soley on secrecy, spin and character assasination in an increasingly futile attempt to convince the public that it is doing, and always has done, "all that it can."

Actually, the whole dismal record of terror under Clinton doesn't equal a bad day under Bush. It equals a pretty good day.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
WWIII was the Cold War;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

And the USA has never lost a war yet!

(Although some theaters of the war didn't always go so well - such as the Vietnam theater - but in the end USA wins!)

We will win WW4 too.

http://www.flagw.com/Merchandise_images/minidecal_c.jpg

[Boris]

If our goal was to destroy violently radical islam then we wouldn't have started with Iraq. Simple as that. There is clearly a disconnect between the Bush administration's actions and it's stated goals. The only logical conclusion is that they have an agenda they are not making public or the top policy makers are stupid.

simple as that.

[MMMMMM]

I see your point that there appears to be a disconnect (or perhaps only a very loose connection).

I think Iraq is very important strategically, an excellent central location which gives us a base from which to prosecute the war against terror and radical Middle Eastern militancy. So IMO we should be there for the long haul and not be pulling out anytime soon. The June 30 date appears quite premature to me. However maybe we intend to keep a large military base and presence in Iraq for a long time even after political power is handed back to the Iraqis. Still I ageee it seems a bit peculiar. I also think we need a much larger military police presence in Iraq which would also mean we need more MPs overall.