Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11
Which are outnumbered by the score of terrorists/insurgents killed since 9/11. At least now something is actually being done about the problem.
Which are outnumbered by the number of new recruits.  Personally, I'd rather nothing was done as opposed to actively encouraging terrorism.
I wouldn't prefer "nothing", but a different approach from war would certainly be an improvement....

We also need to move away from foreign oil....
The Stillhouse Kid
Licensed Televulcanologist
+126|6613|Deep In The South Of Texas

Bubbalo wrote:

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11
Which are outnumbered by the score of terrorists/insurgents killed since 9/11. At least now something is actually being done about the problem.
Which are outnumbered by the number of new recruits.  Personally, I'd rather nothing was done as opposed to actively encouraging terrorism.
Personally, I think the do nothing attitude is more a part of the problem than "actively encouraging terrorism" is, and I certainly don't want someone who shares your attitude running the country.

Do you honestly believe that if we did nothing in response to 9/11 that we would be better off? Can you not see that the do nothing position of the previous occupant of the White House is what allowed Bin Laden the stability needed to plan and execute his attacks?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Do you honestly believe that if we did nothing in response to 9/11 that we would be better off? Can you not see that the do nothing position of the previous occupant of the White House is what allowed Bin Laden the stability needed to plan and execute his attacks?
I can't speak for Bubbalo, but I would say we'd be better off if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

I agreed with invading Afghanistan though.  Bush didn't really fuck things up until we entered Iraq.  Before that, he was a decent president.  I didn't care for his tax cut plans, but that was a minor grievance compared to all the shit he's done since then....
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6558|sWEEDen
USA need to get their shit together....Iraq had nothing to doo with WTC....and the reason you have the most enemies and  terrorists is because you produce them yourselves....always have....and always will....Bush made sure you will face even more terror in the future....Clinton had to deal with terror created from present politics...the next president will have to deal with the terror Bush has created...and soo on and soo on.....warmonging fools.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Personally, I think the do nothing attitude is more a part of the problem than "actively encouraging terrorism" is, and I certainly don't want someone who shares your attitude running the country.

Do you honestly believe that if we did nothing in response to 9/11 that we would be better off? Can you not see that the do nothing position of the previous occupant of the White House is what allowed Bin Laden the stability needed to plan and execute his attacks?
Do you honestly think that more terrorists is a good thing?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526
Irrespective of whether the president of America is republican or democrat there will definitely be another terrorist attack in the United States. It is completely inevitable. Mucking about in Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to prevent this.

PS You might wanna try sorting out your southern border.

PPS Didn't 9/11 happen on Bush' watch...?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-14 19:05:56)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

TrollmeaT wrote:

It doesn't matter how long, we will deal with it & move on from there. Let go of your fear.
Lets see, I am for staying and fighting until this is won, the liberals are for "retreating". Now, who is fearful again?
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6633|USA
The liberals. All thier fault lowing?

This whole thread/argument/"debate" is a failure on a level I thought only Bush could accomplish. I guess the parts of the nation that ousted all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats are ALL liberal.

GG. not really.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11
Which are outnumbered by the score of terrorists/insurgents killed since 9/11. At least now something is actually being done about the problem.
Which are outnumbered by the number of new recruits.  Personally, I'd rather nothing was done as opposed to actively encouraging terrorism.
There ya have folks, liberals in a nutshell. Bury your head in the sand and HOPE terror never finds you. Can't risk hurting someone's feelings or making someone mad at you by taking a stand.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

The liberals. All thier fault lowing?

This whole thread/argument/"debate" is a failure on a level I thought only Bush could accomplish. I guess the parts of the nation that ousted all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats are ALL liberal.

GG. not really.
Nope the people that did that, do not have national security at the top of their list of national priorites.

Now , why don't you answer the OP question?
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6496|South Florida

lowing wrote:

How long do you think it will be, after the election of a democratic president, to the next terrorist attack in the US.

Or do you think once we retreat from Iraq and dissolve the Patriot Act, and put terrorists rights as the leading concern of our nation, that we will all live in peace?

I give it 1.5 years.
Ill give it about 5 days after a democrat pulls troops out of iraq before a new attack. Ya know why? because most sheep who spout the "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!!!" bullshit dont realize what are troops are doing. All they say is "ZOMFG THE1R DIEING!!!"
What most see is there also preventing more attacks by being there. Our job IS NOT DONE and pulling out now would mean:

The terrorists could rejoice as they now can plan there attacks freely without worrying about getting caught

The villagers who wake up every morning to see the loving army keeping them safe would be in fear, and they would be getting killed even more so then now. A real citizen of iraq came to talk to us one time, she told us how it really is, she says that if it wasn't for our troops outside there door lining the streets, they would all be killed by there gov.

In the end, when the wars over, we would be looked down apon as an army because our president took the troops out early, thus 'giving up'
15 more years! 15 more years!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Turquoise wrote:

The Stillhouse Kid wrote:

Do you honestly believe that if we did nothing in response to 9/11 that we would be better off? Can you not see that the do nothing position of the previous occupant of the White House is what allowed Bin Laden the stability needed to plan and execute his attacks?
I can't speak for Bubbalo, but I would say we'd be better off if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

I agreed with invading Afghanistan though.  Bush didn't really fuck things up until we entered Iraq.  Before that, he was a decent president.  I didn't care for his tax cut plans, but that was a minor grievance compared to all the shit he's done since then....
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, it was to oust Saddam. It only became an issue after the terrorists moved in once Saddam was removed. It was not anticipated, but still needs to be dealt with. Please stop trying to say Afghanistan and Iraq were the same fight when we went to Iraq. It is the only argument anti-Bush people have in this effort, and it is not even true.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6633|USA

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

The liberals. All thier fault lowing?

This whole thread/argument/"debate" is a failure on a level I thought only Bush could accomplish. I guess the parts of the nation that ousted all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats are ALL liberal.

GG. not really.
Nope the people that did that, do not have national security at the top of their list of national priorites.

Now , why don't you answer the OP question?
I willnot answer the OP. I will not step in to this circle again. I want to know this. How did super President Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch? Oh nevermind. I guess Clinton and the liberals are responsible for that too. Carry on.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

The liberals. All thier fault lowing?

This whole thread/argument/"debate" is a failure on a level I thought only Bush could accomplish. I guess the parts of the nation that ousted all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats are ALL liberal.

GG. not really.
Nope the people that did that, do not have national security at the top of their list of national priorites.

Now , why don't you answer the OP question?
I willnot answer the OP. I will not step in to this circle again. I want to know this. How did super President Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch? Oh nevermind. I guess Clinton and the liberals are responsible for that too. Carry on.
In case you missed it..

It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6800

lowing wrote:

How long do you think it will be, after the election of a democratic president, to the next terrorist attack in the US.

Or do you think once we retreat from Iraq and dissolve the Patriot Act, and put terrorists rights as the leading concern of our nation, that we will all live in peace?

I give it 1.5 years.
How long do you think it will be, after the election of another republican president, to the next terrorist attack on US citizens.

Or do you think once we stick more troops in Iraq and put creating terrorists by occupying a foreign country and imposing a governmental structure that they seem to be actively opposing as leading concerns for our nation, that we will all live in peace?

I give it 1.5 days.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

The liberals. All thier fault lowing?

This whole thread/argument/"debate" is a failure on a level I thought only Bush could accomplish. I guess the parts of the nation that ousted all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats are ALL liberal.

GG. not really.
Nope the people that did that, do not have national security at the top of their list of national priorites.

Now , why don't you answer the OP question?
I willnot answer the OP. I will not step in to this circle again. I want to know this. How did super President Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch? Oh nevermind. I guess Clinton and the liberals are responsible for that too. Carry on.
Hmmmmmm, 911 in planned all during Clinton Administration, carried out within the first year of the Bush administration, I dunno, whatcha think?

Maybe while terrorist attacks were being carried out in the 90's it might have been a better idea to increase funding to national security agencies instead of cutting it. But yer right I am sure Clinton's actions had nothing to do with it.
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6646|Belgium

Kmarion wrote:

It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.
If I'm not mistaken there was enough intelligence since GWB entered the White House for all US agencies to know there was gonna be an attack, and they informed the administration. But all intel was neglected by the Bush administration. I'd look it up but I don't have the time right now.
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|6250
No discussion of "cut and run" in the Middle East would be complete without discussing the aftermath of the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon. 241 servicemen killed. Lots of tough talk about remaining there and not being "cowed by terrorists" followed by a complete pullout less than a year later.

Oh wait. That was in 1983. The president that pulled out after talking about not backing down was Reagan. My bad. Only liberals and democrats cave to terrorists, right?
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6633|USA

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope the people that did that, do not have national security at the top of their list of national priorites.

Now , why don't you answer the OP question?
I willnot answer the OP. I will not step in to this circle again. I want to know this. How did super President Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch? Oh nevermind. I guess Clinton and the liberals are responsible for that too. Carry on.
Hmmmmmm, 911 in planned all during Clinton Administration, carried out within the first year of the Bush administration, I dunno, whatcha think?

Maybe while terrorist attacks were being carried out in the 90's it might have been a better idea to increase funding to national security agencies instead of cutting it. But yer right I am sure Clinton's actions had nothing to do with it.
Now we're talking so, by YOUR logic, 9-11 happened a year into Bush's term, so its clintons fault. So lets say your prediction is right and 1.5 years after a dem is president, a terrorist attack happens. That will be the Dem's fault right? Even though its about the same amount of time Bush was in office when 9-11 happened. Point being, no matter what happens, when it happens, its the liberals and democrats fault. The whole "debate" is moot. Dem's lose as always.

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-03-15 01:40:39)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Pierre wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.
If I'm not mistaken there was enough intelligence since GWB entered the White House for all US agencies to know there was gonna be an attack, and they informed the administration. But all intel was neglected by the Bush administration. I'd look it up but I don't have the time right now.
Would that be the same intel Clinton ignored for 8 years?  Who let it get to the point where we knew "there was gonna be an attack," as soon as Bush entered office?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6646|Belgium

Kmarion wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.
If I'm not mistaken there was enough intelligence since GWB entered the White House for all US agencies to know there was gonna be an attack, and they informed the administration. But all intel was neglected by the Bush administration. I'd look it up but I don't have the time right now.
Would that be the same intel Clinton ignored for 8 years?  Who let it get to the point where we knew "there was gonna be an attack," as soon as Bush entered office?
No. Intel changes all the time, becomes more accurate and detailed when verified.

I agree there must have been some planning years before 9/11 so technically one could say the Clinton administration had to look for it, but I presume the planning during Clinton's presidency happened outside the US, while the executing (taking flying lessons, etc) took place during Bush' term.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6633|USA
So a terrorist attack with a Dem in power is his fault. A terrorist attack with a Repub in power is the Dem's before him fault.

Christ, The Republicans are perfect.  They can do no wrong.
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6599|space command ur anus

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?
its more fair to compare what the republicans have done to create terrorists
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|6624|USA

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Christ, The Republicans are perfect.  They can do no wrong.
Now you've got it!
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6661|Tampa Bay Florida

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

So a terrorist attack with a Dem in power is his fault. A terrorist attack with a Repub in power is the Dem's before him fault.

Christ, The Republicans are perfect.  They can do no wrong.
LOL.  Yep.  According to lowing anyway.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard