NationStates Jolt Archive

During the election campaign, President Bush and Dick Cheney gave the impression that there was a dire threat that terrorists could incinerate Americans at any time if John Kerry won.

A week later ... the administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington yesterday, and the Capitol Hill police have dismantled security checkpoints around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.

In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Mr. Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.''

Yeehaa! You won!

During the election campaign, President Bush and Dick Cheney gave the impression that there was a dire threat that terrorists could incinerate Americans at any time if John Kerry won.

A week later ... the administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington yesterday, and the Capitol Hill police have dismantled security checkpoints around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.

In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Mr. Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.''

Yeehaa! You won!
Perhaps that should be tested.

During the election campaign, President Bush and Dick Cheney gave the impression that there was a dire threat that terrorists could incinerate Americans at any time if John Kerry won.

A week later ... the administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington yesterday, and the Capitol Hill police have dismantled security checkpoints around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.

In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Mr. Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.''

Yeehaa! You won!

Wow, guess the writing's on the wall for law enforcement officers, then as well. Better find another job, guys...

Wow, they managed to beat a noun. Congratulations are in order.

Is anybody finding odd how the war on terror was all-threathening and a constant threat not so long ago, then, as soon as Bush is re-elected: the war is won! America is safe!

You should have voted for Kerry. The war was won.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the GWOT (Global War on Terror), we must all know that it can never be won. It will go on as long as there is a religous fanataic willing to blow themselves and others up. And the only way to fight it is to be on the offensive and take them down before they get a hit in edge wise.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the GWOT (Global War on Terror), we must all know that it can never be won. It will go on as long as there is a religous fanataic willing to blow themselves and others up. And the only way to fight it is to be on the offensive and take them down before they get a hit in edge wise.

Yep. Straight and to the point. Nice. I fully concur.

*snip*

They've caught you hook, line and sinker.

They've caught you hook, line and sinker.

That made no since?

That made no since?

Neither did that! :D

EM, lol?
You just admitt that your politic encourages terrorism and your answer to that is more millitary actions?
The more you fight, tha more terrorists there will be and greater chances for massive terrorist attacks.
You will give more and more resources for war then for the necesities of your people and meantime there will be more and more terrorists...
You see the circle here?
Fight the cause - Exploatation and repression and not the consequence, which are terrorists.

Lutton: please provide the article you got this from.

I did a google search: "war on terror won"
came up with stuff along the lines of "war on terror WONt work", "war on terror cannot be won" ... NOTHING about it already being won, ect

and furthermore, at this moment bush would STILL be in office had kerry won.

EM, lol?
You just admitt that your politic encourages terrorism and your answer to that is more millitary actions?
The more you fight, tha more terrorists there will be and greater chances for massive terrorist attacks.
You will give more and more resources for war then for the necesities of your people and meantime there will be more and more terrorists...
You see the circle here?
Fight the cause - Exploatation and repression and not the consequence, which are terrorists.

So are you saying that we just sit back and get attacked like on 9/11. We werent fighting them them, and we are now, and there hasnt been an attack on us since. This is because with the use of military action we have the on the run constantly, so they have no time to think out a plan and attack.

EM, lol?
You just admitt that your politic encourages terrorism and your answer to that is more millitary actions?
The more you fight, tha more terrorists there will be and greater chances for massive terrorist attacks.
You will give more and more resources for war then for the necesities of your people and meantime there will be more and more terrorists...
You see the circle here?
Fight the cause - Exploatation and repression and not the consequence, which are terrorists.


Ah, which is similar to war on drugs. you outlaw something, thus enabling a black market. like opium in Afghanistan.

http://www.fightgov.com/article125.html

Lutton: please provide the article you got this from.

I did a google search: "war on terror won"
came up with stuff along the lines of "war on terror WONt work", "war on terror cannot be won" ... NOTHING about it already being won, ect

and furthermore, at this moment bush would STILL be in office had kerry won.

It was in the New York Times. An op-ed by Maureen Dowd.

am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean Bush would have taken the presidency even if he hadn't won it legally? Surely not? :eek:

It was in the New York Times. An op-ed by Maureen Dowd.

am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean Bush would have taken the presidency even if he hadn't won it legally? Surely not? :eek:

LOL he did it once before...

am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean Bush would have taken the presidency even if he hadn't won it legally? Surely not? :eek:


Rather, President's aren't inaugurated until January, so even if Bush lost the election, he'd still be in office for a few more months.

It was in the New York Times. An op-ed by Maureen Dowd.

am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean Bush would have taken the presidency even if he hadn't won it legally? Surely not? :eek:


Inaguration day is january 2nd i believe. AT THIS MOMENT Bush would still be in his first term of presidency and Kerry would not be in office yet.

I was saying, that even if Kerry did win, if Bush was being truthful, the war would be won anyway.

LOL he did it once before...

actually, that was Gore calling for the recounts.

From the National Post (http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=11aa10c4-968d-4b6b-abd5-79a371022252) (Canadian newspaper)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favourite of conservatives, and Commerce Secretary Don Evans, one of President George W. Bush's closest friends, resigned Tuesday, the first members of the cabinet to leave as Bush heads from re-election into his second term.

Both Ashcroft and Evans have served in Bush's cabinet from the start of the administration. Ashcroft, in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush, said, "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

"Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration," said Ashcroft, whose health problems earlier this year resulted in removal of his gall bladder.

"I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons," he said. Ashcroft's letter was dated Nov. 2, election day.

(...)

For the guy who wanted to know where the news was coming from.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/opinion/11thu1.html?oref=login

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/opinion/11dowd.html

you lazy people.

if you cant read the articles, use http://bugmenot.com to get a login.

You know what? the war on terror the way it is currently being fought, is the same as trying to put out a fire with gasoline. The more military force you use, the more angrier you are goin to make the normal civilians, and then they turn into extremists. Does anybody think that if you kill osama bin laden, that al qaeda will just stop? If you kill bin laden, he will be a martyr, spawning thousands of new bin ladens. If you capture him, his followers will most likely try to release him by taking more hostages. You cannot beat bin laden that way. You have to change the things that are spawning these terrorists, poverty and education. If you give them aid money and an education that tells them that terrorism is wrong, then in the long term, the terrorists will be beaten, because they have lost their ability to recruit new members.

The way it is goin currently, the war on terror will last for 50 or 60 YEARS. And countries like the US will become broke and their economies will collapse, meaning they will not be able to sustain any kind of offensives against the terrorists. Its sad, but true.

Wow, they managed to beat a noun. Congratulations are in order.
nazism and communim are nouns as well.

Don't bring parts of speech shit into these discussions.

edit: for a typo

if the worry about terrorism isnt now blatantly obvious to only have been an attempt to garner votes away from democrats, i dunno when it will get through to people

way to politicise a national tragedy and not give a fuck about it mr bush

and i got a topic ill post when im done looking to see if its up

LOL he did it once before...

and your side has failed to show anything beyond anecdotal (as in CRAP) evidence for this point of view. Hell, the evidence your side has shown isn't enough to get accepted in a high school science paper.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the GWOT (Global War on Terror), we must all know that it can never be won. It will go on as long as there is a religous fanataic willing to blow themselves and others up. And the only way to fight it is to be on the offensive and take them down before they get a hit in edge wise.

Let's not forget who trained and equipped the religious fanatics in the first place. Back in the good old Cold War days, America, Israel, and other right-thinking nations pulled a Hedley Lamarr, recruiting all the rustlers, cutthroats, murders, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con-men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglars, horse thieves, bull-dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh**-kickers, and Methodists! (well, maybe not the last one) to go make trouble in Afghanistan. Who knew they might have their own agenda?

Bart: Oh, baby, you're *so* talented... and they are *so* dumb. (Blazing Saddles)

This situation reminds me of that when Thomas Jefferson was president. In 1805 the Barbary pirates plagued Europe and anybody who tried to trade there, charing them a certain amount of money a year to be able to travel without getting sunk. If you didnt pay the toll then the ship you were on would have been sunk, with you on it. These pirates were considered terrorist, in a since tthat they were terrorising the world. Finally Jefferson got tired of giving in the the pirates and dispated Lt. Presly O'Bannon and about 18 marines to go into Tripoli. They stormed the capital and overthrew the Pasha, giving an end to the terrorism that had plagued the Mediteranean Sea for years. In present times, this story is much like that of Al Qaeda. Although there is a difference. If you take out bin Laden, there will still be those willing to fight, but their cause will be gone because bin Laden would be dead.

The only thing that will end the war on terror is to end the route causes, that is to say the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, global poverty and starvation.
Groups like Al Queida recruit on these grounds, twisting peoples beliefs be it convincing Arabs that America is too blame for Israel (which it kind of is, though thats not the point here) or convincing Islamic Africans that the West has forgotten them and they are to blame for their poverty and starvation (which again, we are) this is what fuels the terrorists. Attacking Arab countries is like throwing petrol on a fire, with every country the US invades it lives up to the image of an imperialistic empire that is what the terrorists use to recruit. For every inssurgent killed in Iraq, hundreds more will take up the cause.
Instead of squanderring billions on war, the money would be better invested tackling the route causes, take away the major motivations for recruitment and the terrorists will have no one to recruit. Instead we are just adding fuel to the flames.

This situation reminds me of that when Thomas Jefferson was president. In 1805 the Barbary pirates plagued Europe and anybody who tried to trade there, charing them a certain amount of money a year to be able to travel without getting sunk. If you didnt pay the toll then the ship you were on would have been sunk, with you on it. These pirates were considered terrorist, in a since tthat they were terrorising the world. Finally Jefferson got tired of giving in the the pirates and dispated Lt. Presly O'Bannon and about 18 marines to go into Tripoli. They stormed the capital and overthrew the Pasha, giving an end to the terrorism that had plagued the Mediteranean Sea for years. In present times, this story is much like that of Al Qaeda. Although there is a difference. If you take out bin Laden, there will still be those willing to fight, but their cause will be gone because bin Laden would be dead.
1) bin ladin is NOT the cause, they are not fighting for bin laden, if they were, they would be an organized military
2) pirates are pirates, there is some sort of recognized hierarchy and are more like a military than not
3) al quieda are religious fanatics, you cant stop them by killing people, the more people you kill the more people you make martyrs, the more martyrs you make the more of a resistance comes against you

A: Ashcroft resigns.

Then after that...

B. War on terror is won.

Coincidence...I think not.

In present times, this story is much like that of Al Qaeda. Although there is a difference. If you take out bin Laden, there will still be those willing to fight, but their cause will be gone because bin Laden would be dead.

Do you mean they'd stop terrorizing if Bin Laden was gone? Kind of like the Iraqies did after Saddam was captured?

So, they won eh? I guess we can be expecting to see Osama bin Laden on the ol' choppin' block, eh? Oh, wait... He hasn't been captured, so how could they declare a win when the greatest threat to the western world (besides the obvious of Bush) is still out there...

So, they won eh? I guess we can be expecting to see Osama bin Laden on the ol' choppin' block, eh? Oh, wait... He hasn't been captured, so how could they declare a win when the greatest threat to the western world (besides the obvious of Bush) is still out there...

because bin Laden is a decrepit old man who runs around hiding in caves. he has only been al qaida's figurehead for a while now. The command structure of the organization is in lots of little cells, not in one central location.

because bin Laden is a decrepit old man who runs around hiding in caves. he has only been al qaida's figurehead for a while now. The command structure of the organization is in lots of little cells, not in one central location.
I realise that. But, I'm just making a point.

Exactly, it is not a single orgainisation but a group of many small cells quite capable of acting on their own. Bin Laden didnt plan 9/11 he was aware of it of perhaps even authorized it but I think that shows how killing him will not end this. If anything making it worse.

So are you saying that we just sit back and get attacked like on 9/11. We werent fighting them them, and we are now, and there hasnt been an attack on us since. This is because with the use of military action we have the on the run constantly, so they have no time to think out a plan and attack.


The one simple flaw in this (often pronounced) argument?

IT is a GLOBAL war on terror. Remember? That the whole world has vested interest because such people are a wider threat?

This is true.

So the US mainland has not been hit since. Big deal. Can you honestly claim that they have tried? Which plots have been foiled?

They had time to "think and plan out" the attacks in spain.

They had time to "think and plan out" the nightclub bombings in Bali .

Osama sure looked nice and comfy with his neatly washed and pressedoutfit in his last message ont he eve of the election. On the run? Looked more like he was relaxing at Club Med!

Meanshile, the government has had to acknowledge that terrorism has actually INCREASED worldwide over the past few yeas - not decreased.

So why do you think that there hasn't been a repeat? Is it because your borders are secured, you have arrested all the terrorists, and you have disrupted ongoing plans? Really? Point me to the news clippings of such arrests inside the US.

Or maybe - just maybe - you haven't been attacked since because they haven't tried.

This war has not ended terrorism. This war has not put a dent into terrorism. This war has NOT made America safer. Trying to equate the conceit that the US is the only target and the fact that there have not been attacks in the US for a few years as some sort of success story is rediculous.

Al Qaeda, and other groups, know that they are not going to defeat the US. They aren't going to go to war and win. At best, they want you to leave them the hell alone. 9-11 was a message. A strong one. They have sent similar messages elsewhere.

Why have they not attacked the US directly since? Hell - it's not like the news people haven' pointed out enough glaring security problems that they could exploit. No, the fact is that the last message still has meaning. 9-11 is still the moment that Changed The World. The defining moment.

Well, that is true for them as well as for you. Why would they mess that up? How would the press look if they tried .... and failed? right now - they have that huge success in their corner. A success that still has emotional impact - and that IS the goal of terrorism.

If they attacked again right now, they would have to exceed 9-11 to make a solid statement or else there would be some speculation that they were weakened. A failure would be even worse.

You don't follow up the blockbuster with the trailer.

OMFG, do you mean the war on the "Noun" is over? Talk about an Oct. surprise in Nov. LMAO :D

Did Bush steal another election? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader)

right near the bottom, Bush won over 4,000 (that's the right number of zeroes) in a county of about 640 voters. I hate that guy.

So are you saying that we just sit back and get attacked like on 9/11. We werent fighting them them, and we are now, and there hasnt been an attack on us since.

They are too busy killing American Soldiers and civilian hostages in Irak. as usual, violence doesn't beat violence.

It can Just move it in another remote place, far far away your warm, nice, houses.

Cheers.
PS: There have been some other attacks, like in spain (remember?). U got no attacks atm cause the security level in your country was increased, not cause You were fighting Terrorism. (pretty different)

To summarize: We're recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them!

I think that truthfully everyone who is worried about terrorism has already lost the war. They are afraid, in a state of terror. Hm....terrorism...terror...don't see any connection there, do you? The government is taking advantage of you, my friends. They are taking this highly well-known and emotional event and using it to strengthen their hold on you. The government has been wanting this kind of oppotunity for decades now and now they have had it. There were terrorists before and there will be terrorists after. Hell, America has one of the largest underground terrorist groups in the world, but since they haven't made any major moves, no one cares. Has everyone forgotten how the government used the "communist threat"?

Look, if you die, you die. Deal with it. You're going to die anyway. Don't rely on the government to protect you, they just want to use you. They just want to control you. They just want to feel the power that you give them. Protect yourselves. Rely on those close around you and not the faceless machine. And please, please don't put faith in misguided "strategery."

There is of course the theory that 9/11 was orcastrated by Bush and co so they could begin the neo-con plan of pre emptive strikes on other nations...

There is of course the theory that 9/11 was orcastrated by Bush and co so they could begin the neo-con plan of pre emptive strikes on other nations...

Nein, nein, not at all. I believe that the attacks were orcastrated by terrorists, but I also believe that just like every time before, the government has used a bad situation to gather a firmer grip on us.

Besides, Bush is a puppet for Dick.

I think there are many unanswered questions about 9/11, but yes the US goverment has used it to limit civil rights and will continue to do so over the next four years...

I think there are many unanswered questions about 9/11, but yes the US goverment has used it to limit civil rights and will continue to do so over the next four years...

Or longer, since the CIA is in control.

conspiracy theorists will make a point of Bin Laden being an ex-CIA trained doing his best to help Bush and Bush doing his best to help him:
9/11
He didn't get caught
Bin Laden's adress just before the election endorsing Kerry

And will conclude "What if Ben Laden was ih cahoots with Bush?"

conspiracy theorists will make a point of Bin Laden being an ex-CIA trained doing his best to help Bush and Bush doing his best to help him:
9/11
He didn't get caught
Bin Laden's adress just before the election endorsing Kerry

And will conclude "What if Ben Laden was ih cahoots with Bush?"

If he truly is, I'd find it funny. But Laden helping Bush is really out there. I really don't think Laden would willingly associate with someone like Bush. Well, at least not W. Daddy bush, maybe. Cheny, maybe.

Did Bush steal another election? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader)

right near the bottom, Bush won over 4,000 (that's the right number of zeroes) in a county of about 640 voters. I hate that guy.
:D

Hmm... I think the reasoning behind the "heightened alert" is because the nation expected attacks to occur on or around the election timeframe... Which be why the alert was lowered shortly thereafter... ... ... ... ... ... ...

thats my 2 cents

Did Bush steal another election? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader)

right near the bottom, Bush won over 4,000 (that's the right number of zeroes) in a county of about 640 voters. I hate that guy.

OK, whenever this is brought up so many dems think it is proof that Bush stole an election. It isn't.

What happened is the data copied to the transfer disk incorrectly. You see, on the voting machine the correct number of votes was tabulated, but the vote total file got corrupted, and it the numbers changed. The numbers on the disk are wrong, the numbers on the machine are right. You cannot hack a disk remotely.

And you might ask how I know this? The dude down the hall is from Gahanna, the precinct that this happened in. And Gahanna is just a stones throw from Columbus, where I am attending Uni.

He also isn't getting those votes counted in his favor, I might add. They have been nullified.

You live under the veil of propoganda that tells you what to think and who to hate.
As someone that lives outside of the States I can see what is goining on. The war on terror is being lost. Vicious attacks in Iraq has increased due to the percieved threat of American soldiers. YOu can't win a war in the minds by force you have to covince the people you fight for them and not their oil. Your foreign policy is why you are hated so much and the lack of attacks isn't a sign of anything. The last terrorist attack before 9/11 was years earlier, whats not to say they are waiting agian?
The real threat to us is North Korea and what is the States doing about it? Talking, if I can say as much. Invaded Iraq on less but with the proof being the open, the States does nothing about North Korea.

You live under the veil of propoganda that tells you what to think and who to hate.
As someone that lives outside of the States I can see what is goining on. The war on terror is being lost. Vicious attacks in Iraq has increased due to the percieved threat of American soldiers. YOu can't win a war in the minds by force you have to covince the people you fight for them and not their oil. Your foreign policy is why you are hated so much and the lack of attacks isn't a sign of anything. The last terrorist attack before 9/11 was years earlier, whats not to say they are waiting agian?
The real threat to us is North Korea and what is the States doing about it? Talking, if I can say as much. Invaded Iraq on less but with the proof being the open, the States does nothing about North Korea.
Just a quick critical thinking question, how do you know that you aren't being affected by propaganda and the Americans are?

Just think about this. Because there is no way you can prove that you aren't a product of propaganda. I can't prove I'm not one either.

But European media is typically government controlled, whilst American is private.

OK, whenever this is brought up so many dems think it is proof that Bush stole an election. It isn't.

What happened is the data copied to the transfer disk incorrectly. You see, on the voting machine the correct number of votes was tabulated, but the vote total file got corrupted, and it the numbers changed. The numbers on the disk are wrong, the numbers on the machine are right. You cannot hack a disk remotely.

And you might ask how I know this? The dude down the hall is from Gahanna, the precinct that this happened in. And Gahanna is just a stones throw from Columbus, where I am attending Uni.

He also isn't getting those votes counted in his favor, I might add. They have been nullified.

This is my first post here... but I can't let this stand. There hasn't been just one precint where this has happened. But the results have been fairly consistent with each other, ie, Bush has always profited, while Kerry has always suffered.

Secondly, Diebold is run by Walter O'Dell, a staunch Republican, who said he is, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." That is a direct quote. Look it up.

The Diebold machines are so horribly designed that they should never have been allowed in the first place, but in every county where there was no paper trail, such as your friend's home county, the voting records were quite different from the exit polls. Exit polls are usually close, and the rest of the country has had accurate polls.

They lack proper security functions, with only a single encryption key, F2654hD4, between every single AccuVote machine. According to any intelligent analyist, they were either rigged from the beginning to throw their precincts to Bush, or they were hacked to do so later.

EDIT: Any evidence that they have been nullified? As far as I know, they are still considered part of Ohio's vote totals, which is why people like Nader are asking for a recount. You can't simply nullify votes. It's unconstitutional and illegal. You can only recount.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the GWOT (Global War on Terror), we must all know that it can never be won. It will go on as long as there is a religous fanataic willing to blow themselves and others up. And the only way to fight it is to be on the offensive and take them down before they get a hit in edge wise.


It will go on as long as the US manipulates regional relationships in order to cause strife and thus require our 'police force' presence and entitlement to compensation.
The US has a good deal of its own problems (especially after these last elections) - seeing so many think the US should stay out of other's affairs - i think they should pull ou tof the rest of the world. WIthout it's aid and military presence, how long would it be before all hell breaks loose? How long before economies crumble? how long before epidemics of starvation and disease spread?

Though 'minding their own business' would do the US a hell of good as far as making progress on their own social and domestic issues, such a withdrawal would mean certain disaster throughout the world. This should be a wake-up call to the other GREAT nations of the world: Become less dependent on others (not to say don't engage in free trade) especially the US and more on your own ways of doing things (unless of course that produces more strife)

This is my first post here... but I can't let this stand. There hasn't been just one precint where this has happened. But the results have been fairly consistent with each other, ie, Bush has always profited, while Kerry has always suffered.

Secondly, Diebold is run by Walter O'Dell, a staunch Republican, who said he is, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." That is a direct quote. Look it up.

The Diebold machines are so horribly designed that they should never have been allowed in the first place, but in every county where there was no paper trail, such as your friend's home county, the voting records were quite different from the exit polls. Exit polls are usually close, and the rest of the country has had accurate polls.

They lack proper security functions, with only a single encryption key, F2654hD4, between every single AccuVote machine. According to any intelligent analyist, they were either rigged from the beginning to throw their precincts to Bush, or they were hacked to do so later.

EDIT: Any evidence that they have been nullified? As far as I know, they are still considered part of Ohio's vote totals, which is why people like Nader are asking for a recount. You can't simply nullify votes. It's unconstitutional and illegal. You can only recount.


The article only talks about Gahanna. If you can bring me the names of other precincts where this occured in favor of Bush I'd be much obliged. (There were some counties out west where the problem occured, but it didn't involve the presidential race)

Exit polls are not necessarily accurate. Exit polls are not a survey of the entire population. Just a portion of it. The election is a census of the voting population, whilst the exit polls aren't a full census.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the GWOT (Global War on Terror), we must all know that it can never be won. It will go on as long as there is a religous fanataic willing to blow themselves and others up. And the only way to fight it is to be on the offensive and take them down before they get a hit in edge wise.

Then I must assume that either
a) you're in the military
b) you're ready for a draft.

On the propoganda question, our media here in the U.S. may not be government controlled, but it is incredibly biased. Look at Fox News for example, a mouthpiece for the right. It might as well be government contolled if people actually listen to that channel

EM, lol?
You just admitt that your politic encourages terrorism and your answer to that is more millitary actions?
The more you fight, tha more terrorists there will be and greater chances for massive terrorist attacks.
You will give more and more resources for war then for the necesities of your people and meantime there will be more and more terrorists...
You see the circle here?
Fight the cause - Exploatation and repression and not the consequence, which are terrorists.
What utter nonsense! :rolleyes: