a question for those who still support bush

[The Black Whirlwind]

Um... even if you only care about Americans, what about the fact that over 2,000 American soldiers have been killed in this war? Don't tell me Americans aren't dying with Bush in charge.

yes, SOLDIERS, in the WAR. Not CIV's on our OWN SOIL. The fact is people die in war, it is unavoidable. The homeland has never been attacked since 9/11

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

Have you applied for a checking account, lately?

Have you checked out books on certain subjects?

Are you a member of a (peaceful) peace-activism group?

Have you attended a peace- protest?

Are you a member of a minority ('suspicious') religion?

Are you not even in the slightest worried that people's civil liberties are being suspended, including their right to face their accuser?

If you've not done or are not any of the above, you probably haven't noticed anything.

no, not worried at all. I would gladly give up some civil liberties for security. Whats more important; not being able to check out a certain book, or being blown up?

 

[Darkdale]

no, not worried at all. I would gladly give up some civil liberties for security. Whats more important; not being able to check out a certain book, or being blown up?

That depends on whether or not life is really worth living without liberty. That's a personal decision, but one I think you'll find many degrees of opinion on.

 

[jonny]

no, not worried at all. I would gladly give up some civil liberties for security. Whats more important; not being able to check out a certain book, or being blown up?

The point where we have to give up our liberties to fight the terrorists is the point where the terrorists have won the war. We can keep on figting, but the end we've lost also. Too many people have fought for our rights in the past. Are our children going to have to fight for them again because we were too lazy, scared, and spineless to stand up for them?

 

[lilithu]

yes, SOLDIERS, in the WAR. Not CIV's on our OWN SOIL. The fact is people die in war, it is unavoidable. The homeland has never been attacked since 9/11

Yes, people die in war, that's unavoidable. But this war was NOT unavoidable. Those soldiers were U.S. citizens! I can't believe how easily you write them off like that. (Lucky you that there is no draft!) Yes, soldiers die in order to safeguard our security, and for that I am eternally indebted to them. But they did not sign up to be killed for no reason, and there is absolutely no evidence that the war in Iraq has made our country safer. Your pointing to the fact that no civilians have died on our soil since the war is not evidence. There could be any number of reasons for that having nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Correlation is not causation.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

my statements have nothing to do with Iraq, but the fact that Bush has obviously been doing a good job to keep us safe, as no cowardly terrorist has attacked the homeland since. I don't know where you get this Iraq nonsense. And i am not writing off the soldiers, I am saying since 9/11, since the war, since every measure bush has taken to fight the ********, there hasn't been an attack since. I hate it when every soldier dies at the hands of those cowards, and i hope we will be able to leave soon.

 

[NoName]

That depends on whether or not life is really worth living without liberty. That's a personal decision, but one I think you'll find many degrees of opinion on.

The point where we have to give up our liberties to fight the terrorists is the point where the terrorists have won the war. We can keep on figting, but the end we've lost also. Too many people have fought for our rights in the past. Are our children going to have to fight for them again because we were too lazy, scared, and spineless to stand up for them?

:clap
We're fighting to give freedom to a different country, yet at the same time, stealing freedom from our own citizens. Fat Kat Matt - If our main goal is really securing ourselves, (and by ourselves I mean our country, and of course it's liberties) we're doing a poor job of it by restricting our freedoms in the name of bringing democracy to a completly different nation.

 

[jonny]

my statements have nothing to do with Iraq, but the fact that Bush has obviously been doing a good job to keep us safe, as no cowardly terrorist has attacked the homeland since. I don't know where you get this Iraq nonsense. And i am not writing off the soldiers, I am saying since 9/11, since the war, since every measure bush has taken to fight the ********, there hasn't been an attack since. I hate it when every soldier dies at the hands of those cowards, and i hope we will be able to leave soon.

Hi Fat Kat,

I see where you are coming from, but it really isn't a good argument. The terrorists are very patient and take their time. There have been terrorist attacks and there could be another one any day. They will wait until we let our guard down and strike again. I think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both good and necessary, but I don't agree with how things were handled in Iraq.

We are still very vulnerable. Nothing has been done to protect the borders. As long as anyone can walk into our country carrying any weapons they want we are not safe.

 

[NoName]

Jonny, another frubal-worthy post (and I still haven't spread my karma enough to reward you. What will I ever do?). Our borders are pretty much wide open to whoever wants to come in. We will never be secure until we secure them, no matter how many people we send to Iraq.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i was thinking that too jonny, they could be lulling us into a sense of security, than strike when we are weakest. smart move on their part me thinks. i just hope it never happens.

 

[lilithu]

my statements have nothing to do with Iraq, but the fact that Bush has obviously been doing a good job to keep us safe, as no cowardly terrorist has attacked the homeland since. I don't know where you get this Iraq nonsense. And i am not writing off the soldiers, I am saying since 9/11, since the war, since every measure bush has taken to fight the ********, there hasn't been an attack since. I hate it when every soldier dies at the hands of those cowards, and i hope we will be able to leave soon.

How can you say "since the war" and still say that your statements have nothing to do with Iraq? He based the war on the pretense of keeping us safe. It was a false pretense and 2000 Americans have died since. They are not "safe." And to say that we are safe because there hasn't been an attack since is illogical. By that argument we were perfectly safe until Sept 10th, 2001. By that logic, we were safer under Clinton than under Bush. (And I'm not saying that's true; I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.)

The point where we have to give up our liberties to fight the terrorists is the point where the terrorists have won the war. We can keep on figting, but the end we've lost also. Too many people have fought for our rights in the past. Are our children going to have to fight for them again because we were too lazy, scared, and spineless to stand up for them?

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Good job, Jonny! :jam:

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

whatever lady. i don't give damn.

 

[lilithu]

whatever lady. i don't give damn.

obviously.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

he, lol

 

[Faint]

The fact cannot be denied that we haven't had a single terrorist attack on our soil since September 11th.

As Lilithu already pointed out, this is flawed logic. Correlation does not imply causation. I guess you didn't understand my joke about Godzilla.

Lets see, if it was about oil, why have the prices skyrocketed instead of going down, like they should be if we have a major influx of oil? supply and demand. there is high demand, and obviously the u.s. is in short supply. unless you have any proof at all, its just another kook conspiracy theory. I don't support the douche in office, but i applaud him for the fact he has been able to keep this country safe from the wackjobs to the east for so long.

And what about all the other presidents who kept us safe for so long by not doing very much at all to prevent terrorism? I don't remember any planes flying into skyscrapers under Clinton, but I do remember a little thing called the Oklahoma City Bombing. Do you really think no other U.S. citizen has the ability to do this again? Did Bush also get rid of all the domestic terrorists with his money war?

As for the oil, of course the prices are still high. It's not our pockets the war is lining. And it's not just some "kook conspiracy theory". The Bush family has so many documented ties to the middle eastern oil cartel that even the Los Angeles Times has run stories on their involvement http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm (this is pretty dated though). Excerpt: "The Bushes' ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye. George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries. George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore. George W. Bush mostly raised money from investors for oil businesses that failed. Currently, the family's oil focus is principally in the Middle East." Of course, that's the tip of the iceberg.

Do your homework Fat, then we can talk some more.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I support the war in Iraq in the same way that I would have supported an incompetent and/or deceptive President invading Hitler before he became a threat to us. Ousting any brutal dictator is always a good thing, if possible, and it's definitely a good thing for Iraq, if not in the short term then definintely in the long term. If we hadn't used military force, perhaps there would have been a revolution and Saddam or his heirs would have been overthrown....but that would have been a far more violent affair than the coalition invasion, and the ethnic infighting would have been much worse than it is with coalition troops there, and the new regime would probably be some new dictator.

To sum up:

finally doing something about Saddam = good
democarcy in Iraq = good
misleading Americans and the world = bad

 

[Faint]

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I support the war in Iraq in the same way that I would have supported an incompetent and/or deceptive President invading Hitler before he became a threat to us.

OK everyone,

Canada is next! Never trust a smiling Canuck! Let's hit 'em BEFORE they become a threat, eh!?!?

 

[michel]

To sum up:

finally doing something about Saddam = good
democarcy in Iraq = good
misleading Americans and the world = bad

Not that it is anything to do with me, but I agree with you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Canada is next! Never trust a smiling Canuck! Let's hit 'em BEFORE they become a threat, eh!?!?

I sincerely believe that such comments minimalize the innocent people who were raped, tortured, and intimidated for years by Saddan Hussein. When was the last time the Canadian government kidnapped a priest and televised his torture and execution to intimidate a group of Christians? Saddam did this to many Shi'ite Imams.