NationStates Jolt Archive

I disagree. How exactly is the 'world is a safer place' now that there is anarchy in Iraq and increased terrorism? It doesn't take a foreign policy expert to realise the invasion of Iraq has destabilized a secular country and increased global terrorism. Despite the Bush administration's false claims, Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda. However, since Bush destabilized the country using the pretext he was disarming weapons that didn't exist, Al Qaeda has entered the country and begun recruiting ordinary Iraqis to fight the West. The recent French hostage situation demonstrates this. The invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive in the 'war against terror' and further fuelled the extremist cause.

Is the Bush administration really that stupid? Or do the oil benefits outweigh the price of increased terrorism?

see Farenheit 9/11, it highlights what you're saying.

Careful, they might think it's a documentary.

Careful, they might think it's a documentary.
Oh, now we can't have that can we?!

Yeah I happen to agree that W. made a big mistake in Iraq, but the mistake wasn't going there in the first place. The mistake was he went in and blew the absolute living hell out of everything that moved. Some smarty is going to point out that it was a war and thats what happens in wars. But think about it, your under a dictator and people say they are going to liberate you then they kill civilians and engage in 'shock and awe' tactics. That's certainly not how you win 'hearts and minds' Mr Bush.

This war couldve been handled better then we would truly be able to say the world is a better place.

Oh, now we can't have that can we?!

Of course not! I'm glad you agree!

frist off mike moore is a idoitic liberial prick! Second Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and they have found WMD. I stand behind Bush on all his decisions.

frist off mike moore is a idoitic liberial prick! Second Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and they have found WMD. I stand behind Bush on all his decisions.


Prove to me where WMD's were found.

Otherwise, shaddap.

frist off mike moore is a idoitic liberial prick! Second Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and they have found WMD. I stand behind Bush on all his decisions.
I think he displays more signs of human intelligence than that trained walking chimp Bush! Bush hasn't an iota of intelligence, and there were no WMDs found in Iraq, unless you count what was brought in by the Coalition of the "Willing" *cough*coerced*cough*...

So, what about all the innocent women, men and children who have been slaughtered in the name of this so-called freedom? What did they ever so? What about your soldiers; your men and women who are serving in Iraq whose lives had been snuffed because of this meaningless war?

Here is the thing: You cannot say anything to the contrary, because only time will truly tell. The World may be safer for America, as a nation defendings its own borders and citizens, not professional soldiers. The future is the only thing that holds the answers, because then we can all look back and say "Wow Terrorism has really gotten worse since Bush was president," or ask "Wow, do you believe that before George Bush America was attacked by terrorists?"

The fact of the matter is: America has not been attacked since September 11th, and since the War on Terror began.

Spain was attacked instead of America, and the attacks on Russia are completely unrelated.

Americans may very well be safer within their own borders since the Invasion of Iraq, outside of them being an entirely different story.

But, how safe was America before 9-11? How many attacks were done on American soil? Aside of course from the obvious one being the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 by the Empire of Japan. Is America really any safer than it was before? What about domestic crime?

and why does the 9/11 Comission report say that we are NOT safer than we were?

I personally think it is crap when people say they were coerced into believing the Bush Admininstration's claims of WMD. I knew it was not a war fought for the sake of mankind, to destroy harmful substances, and to disarm one of the harshest dictators alive today. The true reason for the war was for personal reasons, wether it be payback for the assassination attempt on his father, finish what his father couldn't, or what was pointed out in 'Farenheit 9/11', the want for oil. I implore of all of you, though, to at least support the US troops.

and why does the 9/11 Comission report say that we are NOT safer than we were?
I find that interesting...

Hmn.... Maybe because of the two wars. When you're at war, you can't be safe unless you're in your bomb shelter...

frist off mike moore is a idoitic liberial prick! Second Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and they have found WMD. I stand behind Bush on all his decisions.

:eek: :eek:

Not the 'L' word!!!!!!!

Ugh.

We haven't found WMD's: that was bugspray, remember? Or do you watch Fox News?

Funny thing about Pearl Harbor... Hawaii wasn't a state.

At any rate, arguing that there haven't been attacks since 9/11 is what I refer to as an "invisible cat" argument: if there was an invisible cat in this chair, we wouldn't be able to see it; since we can't see it, there must be an invisible cat there. There might very well be an invisible cat (or we might be safer because there haven't been attacks), but there has to more evidence than absence.

But, how safe was America before 9-11? How many attacks were done on American soil? Aside of course from the obvious one being the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 by the Empire of Japan. Is America really any safer than it was before? What about domestic crime?

I am merely playing devils advocate here, but you can argue eitherway.

I find that interesting...

Hmn.... Maybe because of the two wars. When you're at war, you can't be safe unless you're in your bomb shelter...
They were never wars. In a war the person you are fighting has the right to attack your home land and any legitimate target. Any acts such as this would have been called terrorism so there was no war. A conflict maybe but not a war.

frist off mike moore is a idoitic liberial prick!
The prick at least has some grasp of his mother tongue, which makes him less "idoitic" than some certain person you might see in the mirror now and then.

Second Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and they have found WMD.
To quote an old editors line: What, where, when, who?

I stand behind Bush on all his decisions.
Giving any politician a carte blanche is probably the most stupid thing i ever heard of.

Saddam is no terrorist , a dictator yes, but I really never felt endangered by him - while maybe up to 1000 hostages are right now held captive in a school in southern russia by real terrorists (many children from 1th and 2nd grade). You can't fight terrorism with guns - you have to make sure no one gets so depressed about his life that he's ready to die because he got nothing to lose. Bush should use half of the US Military budget for international aid and rebuilding of the poor regions of our world - but i think he's more interestet in keeping the well-being of the richest americans.

:eek: :eek:

Not the 'L' word!!!!!!!

Ugh.

We haven't found WMD's: that was bugspray, remember? Or do you watch Fox News?
Bug spray? =.=;; This is what they are worried about?? Damn, they need a life!

They are a bunch of freakin' retards.

They were never wars. In a war the person you are fighting has the right to attack your home land and any legitimate target. Any acts such as this would have been called terrorism so there was no war. A conflict maybe but not a war.
So then what you guys (by that I mean your army and the Bush Admin) by your logic could be considered acts of terrorism because there was no declaration of war, which would have required the backing from Congress. (the whole "war" in Iraq)

Here is the thing: You cannot say anything to the contrary, because only time will truly tell. The World may be safer for America, as a nation defendings its own borders and citizens, not professional soldiers. The future is the only thing that holds the answers, because then we can all look back and say "Wow Terrorism has really gotten worse since Bush was president," or ask "Wow, do you believe that before George Bush America was attacked by terrorists?"

The fact of the matter is: America has not been attacked since September 11th, and since the War on Terror began.

Spain was attacked instead of America, and the attacks on Russia are completely unrelated.

Americans may very well be safer within their own borders since the Invasion of Iraq, outside of them being an entirely different story.
Since the rock that protects us from tigers thing has already been pointed out, I'll just note that the world is not safer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60660-2004Jun22.html). No matter how many times the president says it.

A Bradley fighting vehicle would not have saved the Trade Centers. Bush is using old solutions to solve new problems. Time for change.

And perhaps one of you Bush supporters can tell me....

If we are so much safer than we were before 9/11, WHY has the terror alert NEVER been below "Elevated"?

And perhaps one of you Bush supporters can tell me....

If we are so much safer than we were before 9/11, WHY has the terror alert NEVER been below "Elevated"?
I hate Bush but I have a good reason!

PARANOIA! It's a good way to keep the masses in check. Or, is that not the reason you're looking for? :D

I hate Bush but I have a good reason!

PARANOIA! It's a good way to keep the masses in check. Or, is that not the reason you're looking for? :D
"Fear, fear silences the voice of protest..." from Sing Sing:J. Edgar Hoover performed by the Kronos Quartet (forgot the composer) using clips from This is Your FBI radio program. Hoover was talking about communists. Looks like we've learned a thing are two, huh?

Since the rock that protects us from tigers thing has already been pointed out, I'll just note that the world is not safer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60660-2004Jun22.html). No matter how many times the president says it.

A Bradley fighting vehicle would not have saved the Trade Centers. Bush is using old solutions to solve new problems. Time for change.

I was just playing devil's advocate, no need to sick the bear patrol on me man...

I was just playing devil's advocate, no need to sick the bear patrol on me man...
It was really an act of convience so I didn't have to waste time with creating context.

and why does the 9/11 Comission report say that we are NOT safer than we were?

Correction: the 9/11 Commission Report says we are not safe. It does, however, say that we are safer. The libs say we should embrace the 9/11 Commission recommendations immediately, then turn around and say we're no safer than on 9/11...

Point: "Golden Chain" broken, Taliban and Saddam deposed, 3/4 of Al Qaeda captured or killed.

If we are so much safer than we were before 9/11, WHY has the terror alert NEVER been below "Elevated"?

Indeed, the terrorists (whomever they may be) have won.

I hate Bush but I have a good reason!

PARANOIA! It's a good way to keep the masses in check. Or, is that not the reason you're looking for? :D

Its as good as any.

It makes you wonder why, if Bush claims that we are SO much safer than wwere...why the "terror alert" has never been below "elevated".

So then what you guys (by that I mean your army and the Bush Admin) by your logic could be considered acts of terrorism because there was no declaration of war, which would have required the backing from Congress. (the whole "war" in Iraq)
Well to start with I’m not a US citizen. But then again it was not an act of terrorism as there was a recognised and identifiable armed force performing the operation. Also there was nothing preventing Iraq declaring war on the US and its allies. A conflict can be legitimate without there being a declaration of war. For example the UK conflict with Argentina after the invasion of UK territories. There was a conflict without a declaration of war, that conflict was legitimate, if war had been declared the UK would have been within it’s rights to bomb targets on mainland Argentina. Also the UN sanctioned conflict ion the Balkans, no war but a legitimate conflict. So it’s a bit more complicated that ‘no declaration of war therefore terrorism’.