BF2S Forums How long?

What does the patriot act have in defending the U.S.?  It is basically a very large knee jerk reaction by people who have no idea what real life here is like. 

Other than that, I hope it never happens, and if it does, it will be too soon.

oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!

Poseidon wrote:

oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!

Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!

Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?

Ok, lets have a look at how many terrorist attacks there have been on American Citizens in the last few presidencies.


Not looking too good for GWB.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?

Oh I'm sorry, is it our president who's made terrorists hate us even MORE by going into a country that didn't attack us first? Is it our president that hasn't been able to defeat militants with 60 year old AK-47's and improvised explosives with our powerful military? If you think we're "safer" under this current administration, think again. I'm incredibly surprised nothing's happened yet. If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country. I think it's all a matter of time until we do infact get "America's Hiroshima", no matter who the president is, republican, democrat, or anything.

You're too busy blaming liberals for everything anyways, it doesn't even seem like you care about the countries protection, just who you want in office.

If you're referring to bush's patriot act, it's only taken away liberties of people. As Ben Franklin said it best: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'

Nope, what I blame the liberals for is their, "bury their head in the sand and hope it all goes away", attitude toward this problem. I blame them for their flip flopping on this issue leaving our soldiers fighting a political battle instead of the battle they were sent to Afghanistan for and what the battle in Iraq turned into.

I have said it 1000 times, the loss of liberties during a time of war is not unprecedented. It happened during WW2 as well. Only difference is the liberals of that day put America and its security first over all other issues, Unlike the liberals of today.

But if I missed something over the past 10 years, please tell what the liberal plan is for combating terrorism. Anything other than surrendering Iraq?


By the way..........Answer the OP question, you haven't done that yet.

Damn them liberals for trying to get our troops home for a war we shouldn't be in at all! Damn them to hell!

Okay so, we're supposed to go back on a policy that was enacted 60 years ago? Yeah. Nice. Times have changed, we're a smarter people. We should know not to make people lose liberties during war time. It's just not right, and should never be considered so.

Who says liberals are surrendering? There is NO WAY to combat guerillas with the technique Good Ol' Dubya's been doing. More troops are going to fix NOTHING. Again, damn them liberals for trying to save the troops from a battle that can not be won. A war that's lasted as long as the Sunni-Shiite war has is not going to end with our troops shooting some surgies, bub. 

I did answer it. I said I know it's going to happen and it probably will, no matter who's in office. I myself am an independent, but I know whether it's a democrat or republican in office, the chance of there being a terrorist attack will be the same unless we put all muslims or suspicious people in holding camps (a la 24) which seems to be fine by you!

Last edited by Poseidon (2007-03-14 09:04:41)

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Oh I'm sorry, is it our president who's made terrorists hate us even MORE by going into a country that didn't attack us first? Is it our president that hasn't been able to defeat militants with 60 year old AK-47's and improvised explosives with our powerful military? If you think we're "safer" under this current administration, think again. I'm incredibly surprised nothing's happened yet. If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country. I think it's all a matter of time until we do infact get "America's Hiroshima", no matter who the president is, republican, democrat, or anything.

You're too busy blaming liberals for everything anyways, it doesn't even seem like you care about the countries protection, just who you want in office.

If you're referring to bush's patriot act, it's only taken away liberties of people. As Ben Franklin said it best: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'

Nope, what I blame the liberals for is their, "bury their head in the sand and hope it all goes away", attitude toward this problem. I blame them for their flip flopping on this issue leaving our soldiers fighting a political battle instead of the battle they were sent to Afghanistan for and what the battle in Iraq turned into.

I have said it 1000 times, the loss of liberties during a time of war is not unprecedented. It happened during WW2 as well. Only difference is the liberals of that day put America and its security first over all other issues, Unlike the liberals of today.

But if I missed something over the past 10 years, please tell what the liberal plan is for combating terrorism. Anything other than surrendering Iraq?


By the way..........Answer the OP question, you haven't done that yet.

Damn them liberals for trying to get our troops home for a war we shouldn't be in at all! Damn them to hell!

Okay so, we're supposed to go back on a policy that was enacted 60 years ago? Yeah. Nice. Times have changed, we're a smarter people. We should know not to make people lose liberties during war time. It's just not right, and should never be considered so.

Who says liberals are surrendering? There is NO WAY to combat guerillas with the technique Good Ol' Dubya's been doing. More troops are going to fix NOTHING. Again, damn them liberals for trying to save the troops from a battle that can not be won. A war that's lasted as long as the Sunni-Shiite war has is not going to end with our troops shooting some surgies, bub. 

I did answer it. I said I know it's going to happen and it probably will, no matter who's in office. I myself am an independent, but I know whether it's a democrat or republican in office, the chance of there being a terrorist attack will be the same unless we put all muslims or suspicious people in holding camps (a la 24) which seems to be fine by you!

See, I thought the allies won WW2 with those failed policies you loath. Our country was united and all sacirficed for her survival. Not sure how you can take a stance that suggests, that was all wrong and never should have been considered.

Maybe surrender is the wrong word, how about retreating?? Cutting and running?? any of those fit?

The liberals are not trying to save troops, they are trying to win the white house. Liberals are the last people in this country that gives a flying fuck about our troops well being. If the war was popular in the US, the liberals who were running for office would be on the "go team" band wagon, make no mistake.

I apologize you did answer the question it was the other poster who didn't

What liberties have you lost Poseidon?

The government knowing what books you checked out from the library is not particularly a loss of freedom.

And, speculate all you want, but the U.S. has gone over 5 years without a terrorist attack.

You claim that "If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country."  But I can tell you that there are a lot of terrorists who want to do similar things, but they havent been happening.  Can you explain that?

Dubya isnt doing the best job, and sometimes I regret voting for him, but not when it comes to national defense and fighting terrorism.

If we stop fighting, do you think the terrorists will just go away?  They didnt for Clinton.

Poseidon wrote:

I myself am an independent,

Huh?

Poseidon wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

What liberties have you lost Poseidon?

The government knowing what books you checked out from the library is not particularly a loss of freedom.

And, speculate all you want, but the U.S. has gone over 5 years without a terrorist attack.

You claim that "If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country."  But I can tell you that there are a lot of terrorists who want to do similar things, but they havent been happening.  Can you explain that?

Dubya isnt doing the best job, and sometimes I regret voting for him, but not when it comes to national defense and fighting terrorism.

If we stop fighting, do you think the terrorists will just go away?  They didnt for Clinton.

Spying into our phones, mail, and every other form of communication they can think of is.

Over 5 years! Amazing! Wow! Maybe on domestic soil you consider that "good", but places around the world are still getting them. Spain, India, Pakistan...just to name a few.

Very easily. Just like 9/11 after the WTC basement bombing. They're waiting for the opportune time. It's like an asteroid impact, it's not if, it's when.

I didn't say that if we stopped fighting they'll go away. We still need to combat them, but not with our troops. There needs to be some other plan, and if they can figure out one, well, good for Patraeis (sp).

5 years is actually awesome in todays world.  Clinton couldnt go 5 years, and his Presidency was like a sandbox compared to what Bush is dealing with.

Do you expect Bush to protect Spain, India, Pakistan and the rest of the world?

Do you have any examples of alternatives to fighting them?

Last edited by weamo8 (2007-03-14 09:30:36)

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Damn them liberals for trying to get our troops home for a war we shouldn't be in at all! Damn them to hell!

Okay so, we're supposed to go back on a policy that was enacted 60 years ago? Yeah. Nice. Times have changed, we're a smarter people. We should know not to make people lose liberties during war time. It's just not right, and should never be considered so.

Who says liberals are surrendering? There is NO WAY to combat guerillas with the technique Good Ol' Dubya's been doing. More troops are going to fix NOTHING. Again, damn them liberals for trying to save the troops from a battle that can not be won. A war that's lasted as long as the Sunni-Shiite war has is not going to end with our troops shooting some surgies, bub. 

I did answer it. I said I know it's going to happen and it probably will, no matter who's in office. I myself am an independent, but I know whether it's a democrat or republican in office, the chance of there being a terrorist attack will be the same unless we put all muslims or suspicious people in holding camps (a la 24) which seems to be fine by you!

See, I thought the allies won WW2 with those failed policies you loath. Our country was united and all sacirficed for her survival. Not sure how you can take a stance that suggests, that was all wrong and never should have been considered.

Maybe surrender is the wrong word, how about retreating?? Cutting and running?? any of those fit?

The liberals are not trying to save troops, they are trying to win the white house. Liberals are the last people in this country that gives a flying fuck about our troops well being. If the war was popular in the US, the liberals who were running for office would be on the "go team" band wagon, make no mistake.

I apologize you did answer the question it was the other poster who didn't

Um, I'm pretty sure we beat japan with military strength. Not enslaving any japanese people, although we did do that (unfortunately). Military Strength ain't working here.

Retreating? Sure, call it that if you will, but hey if you want to lead soldiers to their death instead of safely home, well that's your thing.


Not try to s---wow. Because you know all the ins and outs of the white house right? I'd say it's you and some of your fellow conservatives who constantly blame liberals for EVERY LAST DAMN THING. And yet you can't even support it, or you say we "surrender" easy. Like I said, if you call bringing our troops home that, then so be it. And oh yes, I'm sure the Liberals frequently burn pictures of soldiers in Iraq, rip up the american flag and praise satan too. You've got it all worked out don't you?

Well, you keep staying in that bubble of yours thinking everything's all hunky-dory over in iraq and that we're oh-so-safe with Bush in office. Keep thinking that.

Ok then we agreed, you want to retreat. point closed.

I have nothing worked out, I experience, I read, thus the opinion is formed on liberals. It is what it is. Why so defensive about? Don't  you guys like your self portrait?

I don't think everything in Iraq is "hunky-dory". I think it needs help serious help. If anyone is in a "bubble" it is those that think "retreating" from the war on terrorism will stop terrorist attacks.

Still waiting on the liberal plan for the war on terror by the way.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

See, I thought the allies won WW2 with those failed policies you loath. Our country was united and all sacirficed for her survival. Not sure how you can take a stance that suggests, that was all wrong and never should have been considered.

Maybe surrender is the wrong word, how about retreating?? Cutting and running?? any of those fit?

The liberals are not trying to save troops, they are trying to win the white house. Liberals are the last people in this country that gives a flying fuck about our troops well being. If the war was popular in the US, the liberals who were running for office would be on the "go team" band wagon, make no mistake.

I apologize you did answer the question it was the other poster who didn't

Um, I'm pretty sure we beat japan with military strength. Not enslaving any japanese people, although we did do that (unfortunately). Military Strength ain't working here.

Retreating? Sure, call it that if you will, but hey if you want to lead soldiers to their death instead of safely home, well that's your thing.


Not try to s---wow. Because you know all the ins and outs of the white house right? I'd say it's you and some of your fellow conservatives who constantly blame liberals for EVERY LAST DAMN THING. And yet you can't even support it, or you say we "surrender" easy. Like I said, if you call bringing our troops home that, then so be it. And oh yes, I'm sure the Liberals frequently burn pictures of soldiers in Iraq, rip up the american flag and praise satan too. You've got it all worked out don't you?

Well, you keep staying in that bubble of yours thinking everything's all hunky-dory over in iraq and that we're oh-so-safe with Bush in office. Keep thinking that.

Ok then we agreed, you want to retreat. point closed.

I have nothing worked out, I experience, I read, thus the opinion is formed on liberals. It is what it is. Why so defensive about? Don't  you guys like your self portrait?

I don't think everything in Iraq is "hunky-dory". I think it needs help serious help. If anyone is in a "bubble" it is those that think "retreating" from the war on terrorism will stop terrorist attacks.

Still waiting on the liberal plan for the war on terror by the way.

Who says we're retreating? I never said that. We should still combat terrorism, just not as we are now. In a different way. I just said if you want to call it that go ahead. But that's not what it is. It's not like we're completely forgetting about Iraq.

I also never said we should retreat from the war on terrorism. hey, I'm happy with it, as long as it doesn't interfere with my life, which it seems to have done (but it's looking less like it as the months go on, which is good).

And like I said, I'm an independent. I don't prefer democrats or republicans. I honestly think they both have faults. I go with who I think has a better plan, and right now it's with the liberals, as they want to get our troops out of there and solve iraq diplomatically or with another military strategy.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

What liberties have you lost Poseidon?

The government knowing what books you checked out from the library is not particularly a loss of freedom.

And, speculate all you want, but the U.S. has gone over 5 years without a terrorist attack.

You claim that "If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country."  But I can tell you that there are a lot of terrorists who want to do similar things, but they havent been happening.  Can you explain that?

Dubya isnt doing the best job, and sometimes I regret voting for him, but not when it comes to national defense and fighting terrorism.

If we stop fighting, do you think the terrorists will just go away?  They didnt for Clinton.

Spying into our phones, mail, and every other form of communication they can think of is.

Over 5 years! Amazing! Wow! Maybe on domestic soil you consider that "good", but places around the world are still getting them. Spain, India, Pakistan...just to name a few.

Very easily. Just like 9/11 after the WTC basement bombing. They're waiting for the opportune time. It's like an asteroid impact, it's not if, it's when.

I didn't say that if we stopped fighting they'll go away. We still need to combat them, but not with our troops. There needs to be some other plan, and if they can figure out one, well, good for Patraeis (sp).

Has YOUR letters arrived opened?

Are YOUR phones bugged?

Has YOUR PC been confiscated?

If so, they have a good reason, if not, what are you bitching about? That they did these things to suspected terrorists? This is why your ideals are hated.

Sounds like these countries need to fight against terrorism.

Are there not people trying to prevent  "asteroid impact" before it happens? If  your attitude was adopted, we would say screw it, an asteroid is going to hit us anyway. Pardon those of us that want to try and prevent asteroid impacts as well as terrorists attacks. Don't worry though, if we succeed you will be alive to bitch about both.


Not combat them with our troops?? It seems the decade of the 90's Clinton's diplomacy did dick, to protect us.

So if diplomacy doesn't work, and you say troops is not the answer, what is?

I'm not necessarily talking about me alone. I'm talking about america as a whole.

What, I can't worry about other people's liberties! Okay then. I'll just give a shit about everyone and let them fend for themselves. Good plan.

And I also never said we shouldn't try to prevent a nuke attack or terrorist attack from happening! We should, as long as civil liberties aren't taken away via spying or whatever it may be. Reminds me of T2 Judgement Day/T3. You can postpone it, but you can't stop it.