uh, it should be" Bush himself incurs terrorism" Period. not question mark.

umm because they planned it for that day, they planned the attacks DURING CLINTONS period in office, WHILE HE cut back on security funding, and didnt go after osama and his people for the FIRST bombing against america. they had no clue who would be president when they attacked on 911 simply because it was all planned out WAY BEFORE BUSH even ran for office...911 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GEORGE W BUSH, the terrorist were already mad and planning to kill americans way before bushy ever came to office....simple as that....please know what the hell you're talking about....LEARN THE FUCKING FACTS FIRST.

 

Oh and under clinton we HAD 3 ATTACKS....the world trade center attack in 1992 and 2 u.s. embassy's bombed, AND the uss cole bombed...so actually 4 attack under clinton...

ok, maybe i gotta learn the FUCKING facts first. BUT i'll tell ya some facts you'll probably never know. bush has spoiled the image of the United States of America! during 2004's election, almost all the guys in my class went for Kerry. whoever claimed his favour over bush would be trashed! not that we think Kerry is a nice guy, but bush's really doing a FUCKING bad job! he's the type of guy that makes you ANNOYED! what the hell has he done? has he made our planet a peace place? has he made you feel safer with thousands of death tolls in Iraq? has he mad his fellow citizens in New Orleans feel relieved right after the turbulence of Katrina? has he done anything good to the U.S. economy? NO! he only made himself an ass,a reckless, lame, dumb ass!

yup, terrorism is fucking vicious, i'm TOTALLY against it, and of course so are all the peace-loving people around the world. BUT one thing i should make clear here: a wise guy can turn bad things into good ones, while a foolish guy is merely capable of turning good things into bad ones!

it's really a shame that the U.S. citizens should have such a guy as their president. i'm sure things will be going on much better without such a president!

i think we all dont wanna fights here. i gotta claim i've UTTERLY no hostile meaning. to fight against terrorism, we need reason, we need union, but we dont need such a militant as bush! he only makes things WORSE!

ok, maybe i gotta learn the FUCKING facts first. BUT i'll tell ya some facts you'll probably never know. bush has spoiled the image of the United States of America! during 2004's election, almost all the guys in my class went for Kerry. whoever claimed his favour over bush would be trashed! not that we think Kerry is a nice guy, but bush's really doing a FUCKING bad job! he's the type of guy that makes you ANNOYED! what the hell has he done? has he made our planet a peace place? has he made you feel safer with thousands of death tolls in Iraq? has he mad his fellow citizens in New Orleans feel relieved right after the turbulence of Katrina? has he done anything good to the U.S. economy? NO! he only made himself an ass,a reckless, lame, dumb ass!

yup, terrorism is fucking vicious, i'm TOTALLY against it, and of course so are all the peace-loving people around the world. BUT one thing i should make clear here: a wise guy can turn bad things into good ones, while a foolish guy is merely capable of turning good things into bad ones!

it's really a shame that the U.S. citizens should have such a guy as their president. i'm sure things will be going on much better without such a president!

i think we all dont wanna fights here. i gotta claim i've UTTERLY no hostile meaning. to fight against terrorism, we need reason, we need union, but we dont need such a militant as bush! he only makes things

WORSE!

 

I feel safer under Bush because he's done ALOT to fight terrorism, unlike Clinton who DID PRACTICALY NOTHING. Btw those "FACTS" you showed me were OPINION. not facts. PLEASE LEARN WHAT FACTS ARE BEFORE YOU TRY TO TELL THEM......for crying out loud

 

without such a president things would be going very good FOR TERRORIST.... we need a president like bush who has the balls to stand up to terrrorist and leaders who support them and actualy fight them instead of appeasing them..thats exactly what bush is doing....his job, to protect america...doing a good job.

ok, maybe i gotta learn the FUCKING facts first. BUT i'll tell ya some facts you'll probably never know. bush has spoiled the image of the United States of America! during 2004's election, almost all the guys in my class went for Kerry. whoever claimed his favour over bush would be trashed! not that we think Kerry is a nice guy, but bush's really doing a FUCKING bad job! he's the type of guy that makes you ANNOYED! what the hell has he done? has he made our planet a peace place? has he made you feel safer with thousands of death tolls in Iraq? has he mad his fellow citizens in New Orleans feel relieved right after the turbulence of Katrina? has he done anything good to the U.S. economy? NO! he only made himself an ass,a reckless, lame, dumb ass!

yup, terrorism is fucking vicious, i'm TOTALLY against it, and of course so are all the peace-loving people around the world. BUT one thing i should make clear here: a wise guy can turn bad things into good ones, while a foolish guy is merely capable of turning good things into bad ones!

it's really a shame that the U.S. citizens should have such a guy as their president. i'm sure things will be going on much better without such a president!

i think we all dont wanna fights here. i gotta claim i've UTTERLY no hostile meaning. to fight against terrorism, we need reason, we need union, but we dont need such a militant as bush! he only makes things WORSE!

 

:smug: Amen

I havent read most of this thread because I began to read some really stupid opinions and gave up (And coming to page 4 and seeing "bush is a dumbazz cuz he is!!1" made me happy I skipped a few). I'm not going to deal with my opinions on Bush because there are a million places to start, most of them bad, some of them good, but I think a lot of people who have posted in this topic could be a bit more open minded instead of trying to look passionate.

 

Firstly, Nick especially, STOP TYPING LIKE THIS every ten words to try and STRESS THE BIGGER WORDS IN YOUR ARGUMENT because it is really FUCKING ANNOYING TO READ and whats worse is you got people like Camille and Ultracold DOING THE EXACT SAME ANNOYING FUCKING THING. It doesnt make your argument look strong, all it does is MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE AN ASS WHO'S SHIFT KEY STICKS.

 

OK, now who gives a damn if the CIA is listening in on your phonecalls?

 

"Its my privacy!"

 

That's just bullshit. I'm really sure a CIA agent really gives a fuck if your phone shagging some guy or reserving a weightwatchers place and then ordering a pizza, its not like these guys know you, they dont care about your life so why should you care about them?

 

Besides, it's a practice that is done the world over. The MI5 and MI6 do it in Britain. It's not as if they listen to every word you speak, the only way that they tap into your phonecall is if your voice is monitored through computers saying words such as "Bomb" "Shoot" "Guns" "Smuggle" etc.. This means that CIA security tapping into phonecalls are not sitting at home in their underwear, looking across the street and suddenly decide to act on the thought "Mmm I wonder who Mrs Jenkins is talking to..."

 

The choice words are also picked up in e-mails, text messages and phone messages.

 

I can see how it invades your privacy but only in theory, the argument "Those bastards are stealing my privacy!" is for awkward robotic assholes who are too blind to see that in practice the people who are listening in on these phonecalls do not know a) who they are listening to and b) anything about them.

 

Unless you like talking in depth about putting bombs together, dont expect your phone to be one of the lucky winners.

iad agre

Because I'm bored but not yet tired enough to sleep, I will state my opinions on America under the Bush Administration.

 

That's a vital term right there. Many closed-minded people seem quick to put blame on one man, without realising that the actions of any man, nomatter how intelligent or brilliant, do not go un-scrutinised by those around him. And George Bush has plenty of people around him, not only his own associates, but the associates of his father, and the 2nd generation associates that have stemmed from his run as president.

 

The truth, to me, is that September 11th was waiting to happen, but it has just as much to do with George Bush then it does with his predecessors. It's well documented that the FBI were warned that a plot involving a plane flying into the WTC by Arabs in August 1998. This was the conclusion of a joint meeting with the House and Senate intelligence committees. But, quite understandably, the intelligence at the time felt the plan could not work considering the high security involved in the county's aviation program. Unfortunately, only 2 years later, the levels of security had dropped, the original threats recieved were all but forgotten (Afterall it was never of the forefront of concern, understandably, it seemed a very, very unrealistic occurence in 1998).

 

The amount of 'controlled security meaure' attacks on Iraq and it's neighbouring coastlines, mainly by the marines and airforce, before 9/11, sum up an uncalculable total of deaths that far exceed multiplying the result of the WTC by 10. Everything from hospitals, to schools, can you really blame Arabs for rallying anti-American support?

 

Another alert came just a month before the attacks, the report said, when the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner." The information was linked to a group of Pakistanis based in South America. That warning did not mention using an airliner as a weapon and, the report said there was apparently little, if any, effort by intelligence community analysts to produce any strategic assessments of terrorists using aircraft as weapons. I suppose that was Bush's fault.

 

Face it, the exact same thing would have happened under Clinton.

 

But did Bush go wrong at all? Yes he did. Mickey Herskowitz, Bush's former ghost writer, a very reliable source (Considering he chose to quit the Administration in order to release his files- unfortunately he was not allowed recordings, making him a non-official source) uhhh anyway, says that Bush was talking about invading 2 years before 9/11. Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

 

The impression this leaves me is that George Bush's intentions to attack Iraq were not pure. He was consistently ready, and waiting.

 

For the past few years I've been trying to peel myself away from conspiracies but sometimes it seems so obvious a conclusion that I find myself looking. Was Bush responsible for the attacks? Its a wild, wild conclusion, which gets more appropriate the more facts that you look at. Bush wanted a reason to attack Iraq, he was looking for one, he was the cowboy kicking a gun at a young boy and telling him to pick it up. Who was in the only aeroplane travelling to or from America on the day of September 11th 2001? The family of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

You look at what Stanley Hilton (Another very reliable source) did, trying to sue Bush, Rice etc. over not only allowing the attacks, but ordering that they happened. If anyone heard his interview on the Alex Jones radio show in 2004, he was planning a $7 billion lawsuit that eventually never made it to court, and how he's suspiciously gone out of contact (Along with his family and even 2 of his close friends). That interview on Alex Jones revealed everything in a light that was definately not of a conspiracy theorists', there were no in-conclusion or indicative signs, it was all direct. Eye witnesses (Of Bush apparently outrightly ordering and signing agreements for 9/11 attacks) like Wolfowitz and Feith turned away from it, but it appears Hilton has given his life in revealing such information.

 

I think I just swung from left to right like a pendulum, and your probably thinking "WTF?!" but really I dont have an outright opinion on any American politics. All I have is way too much knowledge to know what to do with it, and sometimes I find myself digging into the back files of my memory and arguing points for Bush, and then against, I could really do it all day and thats why I usually stop myself from even starting.

 

Oh well.

Doesnt anyone care about my mindless ramblings?

 

Later tonight I'm going to reply to more particular posts in this thread because once again I've been arguing myself about this all day.

Im too tired to debate, ahhh

Its the principle Reilly.... we have a constitution to abide by..... and it violates my amendment. Sure... I have nothing to hide from the government.. lol they can listen to my calls and see how many guys I shagged or didn't.... lol but the point is... I am no longer living in a 'free country'. I am now living in a country in which the gov't controls every aspect of my 'private' life... where's the freedom in that???

 

 

I am not one to point and say that Clinton was a better Pres. or that even Kerry would have been..... (I highly doubt it at this point) and believe it or not Nick... when 9/11 happened... and I saw the Pres. down at Ground Zero.. when he vowed that the ones responisble would pay... I was with him. Yes.. I supported the man. I lived through 9/11 1st hand... I saw all the destruction right outside my window and everynight on the radio.. (because there was no TV) :( I believed in him... and backed him even though I hadn't voted for him in the previous election... I backed him because he was the President, and I found it very noble of him to come down there right after it happened. It was a beautiful thing... but he ended up lying to us.. brought us to war under false pretenses.. and then promised all this money in relief to NY but we have yet to see the reults...

 

the man is a liar.. and this has to be one of the most poorly run Administrations in our US history.... that is a fact. Our budget is off wack... we are billions in debt now.. our troops are practically stuck out there.. and more and more soldiers die everyday.. what do we do now?? How do we get out??? Will we ever be safe????

 

Wiring in on everyone's phone calls within the US is a violation of our rights.. you have to have permission to do so.. you can't spay on your own people.. thats just wrong.

Its the principle Reilly.... we have a constitution to abide by..... and it violates my amendment. Sure... I have nothing to hide from the government.. lol they can listen to my calls and see how many guys I shagged or didn't.... lol but the point is... I am no longer living in a 'free country'. I am now living in a country in which the gov't controls every aspect of my 'private' life... where's the freedom in that???

 

Who gives a fuck (Again)???

 

Does knowing you live a 'free' life make all your problems go away? Does it make you wake up happier? Does it make a realistic difference to anything?

 

Before I even waste my time (Which I kinda feel like Im doing already) I want to know how exactly the government invade your privacy?

 

Unless your privacy and friends include being involved in constructing explosives or smuggling cocaine, then the government doesnt really care. Like I said they dont give a fuck how many guys you shag (Or didnt haha :P).

 

The only people the government invade into their privacy are people suspected of such crimes, and if they dont find anything, they move on.

 

And nobody and nothing abide's by the Constitution. It was the gateway to the primest form of Democracy and Capitalism, ummm 200 years ago. Sloppy ammendments arent going to change the fact that the Constitution can be seen in just about any light. This is why your court system is so flawed (Then again, so is everyone's).

 

Really, putting a principle of your rights on the same level of soldier's dieing is really stupid. I'm saying you have bigger problems to worry about as a nation, this 'invasion of "privacy"' isn't a gigantic stumbling block.

 

The FBI and CIA are really the only responsible security forces around (On a consistent basis, at least) and you have them to thank for putting drug dealers and child-porn downloaders behind bars. But nooooo, your privacy is more important.

 

the man is a liar..

 

He's a politician. On every level, there must be lies. On his level, his lies are blown up into being huge disasters. Not that I'm defending him. But if your going to hate him you could pick bigger reasons. Like how he probably orchestrated 9/11, thats a big'un.

 

Going to Iraq was quite simply the most obvious diversion tactic we've seen this century (And though it's only 6 years in, I bet it will be king for at least another 20). Yes he did promise to make them pay, and maybe he will, the Iraq war of course isn't giving me the faith to believe that he will though, as obviously he hasnt been focussed on Osama Bin Ladin for the past 4 years...

 

You can't say that Bush is under the worst administration ever. You just simply can't know that. In my opinion Andrew Johnson or JFK had worse runs (JFKs was going so badly that the Government killed him! Woah) but there's no way I can say who's indefinately the worst.

Iraq was by far not a diversion tactic...the simple fact that people think it is shows the lack of knowledge on the way he's fighting terrorism..its his fault for not outlying the stratigy better...

Kerry simply said it best at Temple, running up to the election: "George Bush made Sadam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama Bin Ladin the priority."

 

Yes Bush tried to follow Osama for like, 8 months? Before quitting. Your president is a quitter.

 

Right now America are so screwed when it comes to Iraq. They can only complete their plan with support from Syria and Iran, which is an impossibility. Iran would collapse completely if it supported this. So America now have to take over both countries, which they dont stand a chance in doing, even with the vast amounts of money they are spending they dont have the army to do it. The only option they have is to pull out. For the past 10 months or so they must have realised this, and are simply stalling.

 

They may even stall until the next election, Bush is intent on maintaining power until after this, and wants another Republican in (And considering how the Supreme Court is beginning to look, he'll have it).

Bush NEVER quite..as the recent attacks on his leadership have shown..its the media who quite...our war isnt fought on what goes on the tv...the media has focused on iraq but were still focusing just as much on ossama as we would have if there was NO iraq war...the simple fact is the resources being used agaisnt osama are different then being used against iraq...so the iraq war didnt hinder our war on ossama...it just seems that way because of the media...

 

the truth is would be doing teh EXACT same thing agaisnt ossam if the iraq war never happened...and the war in iraq is a key part in the war on terror, were not just at war with ossama but other islamic terorist groups...

 

there was NEVER any quitting by bush but focus being taken away towards iraq by the world and the world media...simple as that...

 

more then america is screwed...the world will be screwed specialy europe if iran gets nukes...

 

i want people to understand iraq war or no iraq war the way were going after ossam would be exactly the same.

That's not true. Since Iraq, the US have pulled over 300 CIA departments from investigating the ochre mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as the most likely refuge for the alQaeda chief and his number two, Ayman al-Zawahirisomethingorother. Now, there is about 4. It's getting lonely up on those mountains.

 

There was NO reaction by Bush in any of the last four Bin Ladin tapes sent out on Arab television. Absolutely no updates, no thoughts re-processed to us, including the very recent one. Cheney commented on it, well, barely commented on it, gave some sheepish response about saying No to terrorists and the ever so valuable 30minute press conference on why the tape is believed to be genuine :idea2:

 

It has not been on Bush's mind in any of the now dubbed, 'Iraq press conferences', as they now include Iraq, and only Iraq.

their lack of commenting on it is a matter of them not talking alot to america..which is one of their downpoints...it means nothing of us not having intell or not going after him...it simply means the administrations is keeping it quiet as usual.

 

its been on bush's mind but the simple fact is the 2 wars are fought VERY differently with different stratigy and troops...one war hasnt an affect on another to a big enough degree... the simple fact is we would be going about ti the same way if iraq war never happened. as for the Iraq updates thats only because the media is putting attention on that war, we'd have afghanistan updates alot if the media focused on that...its actually a good thing the media isnt focusing on ossama..in a war like that we dont need to be out blaring the news and updates about it alot..that would only help the terrorist.

 

not to mention its not bush's job to guide the war in afghanistan..he's letting the military and cia and generals do that...they are focused on that just as much as iraq..the simple fact is the damn media has gullible people believing were not focusing on ossama..and those assumptions are made by most people because of the lack of reporting on it...not because of lack of focus or effort...the truth is were doing everything we can knowingly do to find or kill ossama..

 

Bush is doing his job to find ossama...the majority of the work has to be done by the military not by him...many people simply dont understand how this type of war is fought...its not a normal war at all....

Stop blaming everything on the media. If I hear '..But the media..' one more time I'll rip my face off.

 

It doesnt concern you that the only flight authorised on September 10th 2001 contained 3 of the Bin Ladin family and a fourth misterious man who may have been Osama with pseudonym?

 

And onto the media, when that tape broke the other day about Osama it was the headline of every news channel.

 

Q: Nick, how exactly do you expect the media to comment on how America is pursuing Afghanistan in the same way, when there is nothing to support this?

 

I can see the dashing short but sweet headline:

 

America Still in Pursuit of Osama Bin Ladin 5 years later

 

..And with no article undeneath.

 

What America has been doing in terms of fighting the original war on terrorism is very unclear. It's not even clear that they still are fighting this war.

 

It is a fact, within the White House and the known 'scary misleading' media world (Which by the way Nick, has if anything blurred what Bush is doing wrong to help him, it is ridiculous you claim otherwise as they definately arent working against him) that in late March 2002 CIA Director (Or vice director or something) John Mclaughlan sent a message to the white house saying that they would be scaling back it's operations in Afghanistan. They cut the $90 million program and Task Force 5 became 2/3rds as strong as it was when they originally began the hunt. Task Force 5 was the most important part to the entire plan, and now it doesnt even exist!

 

Commando's with their high tech equipment then began from that point onwards to surge towards Iraq. The troops also planned to be developed and trained in the aforementioned $80million plan were shipped directly to Iraq instead of the original plan of invading Afghanistan.

 

The only American's in Afghanistan right now are the CIA, and very little departments thereof. They have no further intelligence other then that. Both wars use much of the same technology (How do you think they found Sadam? Asking around?)

The media and press are and have been one of the most influencial things in the world...sways people opinions and views...its a very powerful thing...and due to it people can be misguided and fooled...as many have been with teh whole "bush isnt going after ossama..we stoppd" stuff...that can directly be blamed on the media, like it or not..the fact remains teh same. they have things to report, but the thing is iraq has far more news worthy stories, iraq is what the world wants to hear about so the news gives people what they want to hear...

 

question-which would make better knews soldiers follow up lead on ossama in the kush mountians of afganistan or 30 people die in bus bomb in iraq???

 

im amazed bush won the last election..with most of the news stories negateive about things he's done and him...its amazing he won. the media didnt help him at all, except foxnews..

 

both wars use alot of the same technology. but in different ways with different tactics...iraq war and the afganistan war are fought 2 completely different ways...many people doesnt seem to understand this.

question-which would make better knews soldiers follow up lead on ossama in the kush mountians of afganistan or 30 people die in bus bomb in iraq???

 

Dont ask stupid questions.

 

You are only dis-couraging your own point you made earlier:

 

as for the Iraq updates thats only because the media is putting attention on that war, we'd have afghanistan updates alot if the media focused on that.

 

So you expect the media to focus on the Afghanistan?

 

There should be news on Afghanistan, there should be breakthroughs and new discoveries in the leadup to finding Bin Ladin. The only recent one was reported earlier this month (Which is why Bin Ladin responded in a videotape) before that, it had been nearly a year since the US had made any significant movement in the mountains on that border.

 

both wars use alot of the same technology. but in different ways with different tactics...iraq war and the afganistan war are fought 2 completely different ways...many people doesnt seem to understand this.

 

Only the aims are different. Many of the technical equipment and people needed to run both wars are exactly the same, and right now it is a fact that they are all based in Iraq. The budget of the war is so far stretched right now that Nick, how exactly do you expect Bush to be focussing on Afghanistan when it is not as relevant right now?

 

Everyone is focussed on Iraq- stop right there, dont just blame the media, -because the US wanted it this way. Now that they have made their own bed which is looking very messy and without any real conclusions, they are ensuring that Iraq remains the diversion and simply dont have the money or remaining equipment to put more time and effort into finding Osama.

There should be news on bin laden but the sad fact is theres not much progress being made on finding him as a person...and i doubt we'll ever find him..no matter who's president...there is ALOT of progress being made agaisnt alqeada in that region that goes unreported because iraq has the main stories. thats the sad truth, but the truth none the less...major progress against ossama terrorist is being made every year just not in finding him as much.

 

Bush shouldnt be focusing that much on afghanistan, he should be doing what his generals ask of him. for the most part he's doing the best job possible for that region...in afganistan we need special force's, and helicopters along with bombers to do the job...in iraq we need more tanks and vehicles and boots on the ground...

 

im so sick of people saying bush invaded the wrong way, we did it the right way from the beggining...we learned from the mistakes the russian made in afganistan...that type of region requires, native forces to be used with special forces and the airforce, not massive numbers of troops, tanks and vehicles...ive heard alot of people say before bush should have sent the military that is in iraq to afganistan...but that just isnt how it works...we learned this through the mistakes of the USSR. in iraq we needed lots of boots on the ground, tanks, apc's, and special forces and the air force.

 

ok if america wanted the to focus on iraq it makes no change in us fighting agaisnt ossama in afganistan....different types of war and stratigy...the lack of newescoverage means NOTHING on how the war is going or us not fighting it anymore...

 

im sorry get pissed if you want but it comes down to mainly people thinking this because the media wants to go after biggers stories taht will help them out, not the lack of effort on america's part in afganistan...its the way it is...

 

 

its stupid when people act like were not doing anything now days just because the media isnt paying much attention to it.

I dont even know why you are talking about invading Afghanistan, because I certainly wasn't.

 

The important factions within Afghanistan simply aren't there. Task Force 5, Bush's promise in his original plan, is basically non-existant. CIA agents have been moved out of the country. Commando's with the correct technology for finding Osama aren't there, neither is the technology. It's all been moved to Iraq, well maybe about 85% of it.

 

To say that one country, with all of it's technology, money, and strategies being stretched on Iraq (And we're talking about the military being BILLIONS in debt here) is using the exact same effort and focus on Afghanistan? That's just not possible, and the facts prove it.

 

major progress against ossama terrorist is being made every year

 

Haha! C'mon, America made most of it's progress in it's first year, nay, 8months, when it cut the possibilities down from being, anywhere in the world, to being within a 20 mile radius on the border. Do you know what progress has been made since then, 4 years later? Barely any. They think they are onto him after their latest discovery, but really they should have found him years ago, and now he's probably moved on anyway.

 

im sorry get pissed if you want but it comes down to mainly people thinking this because the media

 

Who's talking about what generally people think? What I think, after the proof handed into the White House in 2002 by CIA's John McLaughlan directly telling national security that America would be, I quote "Scaling back" it's progress in Afghanistan and focussing on Iraq. I remember Powell making the speech about it live on CNN, I didnt even read it through a news source, it was him, sheepishly but telling everyone in a press conference, that Afghanistan would no longer be a 'fundamental target'. Much of the terminology he used that day was very broad and complexed, often making absolutely no sense, and when it boiled down to it, he clearly meant they were focussing mainly on Iraq. It's also a fact that most of the money intended to being spent on Afghanistan (With the $80-$90million training of soldiers) went straight to Iraq in the end, along with the other hundreds of millions aimed to help out Task Force 5.

 

Once again I re-iterate, how could Bush put America severely in debt when Afghanistan was no longer a primary focus? Wouldn't it be smarter to use all sufficient funds on capturing Iraq? (Although it wasnt smart in the first place to use such a stupid diversion)

ive said what ive had to say....were going just as strong agaisnt alqeada as we would have been without a iraq war..im done.

 

basically we wouldnt be able to do much with the war on terror with saddam in power anyways...so as apart of the grand scheme of things saddam had to go.

Who gives a fuck (Again)???

 

I'm up for a tumble, cowboy. ;)

 

Does knowing you live a 'free' life make all your problems go away? Does it make you wake up happier? Does it make a realistic difference to anything?

 

Does compromising your liberties make you safer?

 

No, living a 'free' life (whatever that means) doesn't make you happier. That's up to you. But protecting civil liberties does help create an environment that encourages creativity, openness and prosperity. Plus it's a whole lot more fun than living in one of those pesky dictatorships.

 

Before I even waste my time (Which I kinda feel like Im doing already) I want to know how exactly the government invade your privacy?

 

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the government? I guess it depends on what you see as it's role. If the purpose of governemnt is to protect the liberties of its citizens (as the founding fathers seemed to believe), then granting the CIA (or any other acronymn bureau) carte blanche seems like a pretty serious breach.

 

Unless your privacy and friends include being involved in constructing explosives or smuggling cocaine' date=' then the government doesnt really care. Like I said they dont give a fuck how many guys you shag (Or didnt haha :P).[/quote']

 

Don't mean to go off on too much of a tangent here, but your remark about smuggling cocaine made me think about the futility of the other war the government is waging (the drug war). Seems to me that by making so-called "recreational" drugs illegal, the government is actually encouraging crime, much the way prohibition helped promote organized crime in the 20's.

 

The only people the government invade into their privacy are people suspected of such crimes' date=' and if they dont find anything, they move on.[/quote']

 

I think the key word there is "suspected" (ie. not necessarily guilty). Plenty of innocent people have been locked up or put to death for crimes they didn't commit. And while the government may move on, sometimes it's not so easy for those who have been wrongly accused.

 

And nobody and nothing abide's by the Constitution. It was the gateway to the primest form of Democracy and Capitalism' date=' ummm 200 years ago. Sloppy ammendments arent going to change the fact that the Constitution can be seen in just about any light. This is why your court system is so flawed (Then again, so is everyone's).[/quote']

 

I don't think "sloppy ammendments" is the issue here. That's just the nature of language. There's an encoding process, a transmission process, and a decoding process. So there's always going to be room for interpretation. That's why there's a system of checks and balances built into the American government.

 

Really' date=' putting a principle of your rights on the same level of soldier's dieing is really stupid. I'm saying you have bigger problems to worry about as a nation, this 'invasion of "privacy"' isn't a gigantic stumbling block.[/quote']

 

Are individual rights and soldiers dying mutually exclusive? Aren't soldiers supposed to be fighting to protect our rights?

 

The FBI and CIA are really the only responsible security forces around (On a consistent basis' date=' at least) and you have them to thank for putting drug dealers and child-porn downloaders behind bars. But nooooo, your privacy is more important.[/quote']

 

See drug comments above. As for "child-porn downloaders" (you mean like Pete Townshend?), I think the best prevention against child predators is an informed an aware society (ie. parents, teachers, neighbors) in cooperation with local law enforcement. And again, are individual privacy and the FBI/CIA's activities mutually exclusive? Do you really need to give up one for the other?

 

the man is a liar..

 

He's a politician. On every level, there must be lies. On his level, his lies are blown up into being huge disasters. Not that I'm defending him. But if your going to hate him you could pick bigger reasons. Like how he probably orchestrated 9/11, thats a big'un.

 

I think she meant he's a *bad* liar. ;)

 

Going to Iraq was quite simply the most obvious diversion tactic we've seen this century (And though it's only 6 years in' date=' I bet it will be king for at least another 20). Yes he did promise to make them pay, and maybe he will, the Iraq war of course isn't giving me the faith to believe that he will though, as obviously he hasnt been focussed on Osama Bin Ladin for the past 4 years...[/quote']

 

I think Bush's refusal to budge on Iraq stems from his need to be right more than anything, which is related to his born-again Christian morality-based belief system.

 

You can't say that Bush is under the worst administration ever. You just simply can't know that. In my opinion Andrew Johnson or JFK had worse runs (JFKs was going so badly that the Government killed him! Woah) but there's no way I can say who's indefinately the worst.

 

So now we're on to JFK conspiracy theories? And don't get me started on Andrew Johnson! Sure Bush may not be the worst, but he's certainly provided more goofy soundbites (to use as fodder) than any other president!

 

BTW, Reilly, you seem to have some anger issues. Perhaps you need a hobby to help you relax....like listening to Coldplay. :cool:

The media and press are and have been one of the most influencial things in the world...sways people opinions and views...its a very powerful thing...and due to it people can be misguided and fooled...

 

The media is only as powerful as the people who buy what it has to sell. If you're conscious, aware, and accept responsibility for your actions, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

Placing the blame on someone or something else just disempowers you.