who thinks this country should be dissolved/revolution

[shesha]

I tend to disagree with you saw I think Bush is the bigger evil. I agree that neither candidate was a good choice, but personally Bush stands for almost everything I'm against. He wants to put religion into government every way he can, he wants abortion to be illegal, he doesn't want gays to be able to be married and he is very pro death penalty. Not to mention he isn't the brightest crayon in the box. I just hope the next election we have someone better to represent the country.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

if bush didn't come into office this thread wouldnt exist

 

[Saw11_2000]

I tend to disagree with you saw I think Bush is the bigger evil. I agree that neither candidate was a good choice, but personally Bush stands for almost everything I'm against. He wants to put religion into government every way he can, he wants abortion to be illegal, he doesn't want gays to be able to be married and he is very pro death penalty. Not to mention he isn't the brightest crayon in the box. I just hope the next election we have someone better to represent the country.

I'm for those things too, but let's say marriage really doesn't mean that much if we're getting bombed by suicide bombers and getting dirty bombs launched at us. I would rather be safe and alive and have less of those things, then be dead and have those things.

 

[linwood]

I'm for those things too, but let's say marriage really doesn't mean that much if we're getting bombed by suicide bombers and getting dirty bombs launched at us. I would rather be safe and alive and have less of those things, then be dead and have those things.

Ahh so you fell for the "fear factor"

How many attacks have been launched on the US before or after 9/11?

How difficult do you really think it would be to attack a country with completely wide open unguarded borders?

I don`t see how we are even slightly safer now than before 9/11.

 

[Saw11_2000]

0 and there's a reason for that. That's why I support bush.

Not too difficult, but if it hasn't happened, we must be diong something right.

 

[linwood]

0 and there's a reason for that. That's why I support bush.

Not too difficult, but if it hasn't happened, we must be diong something right.

My point was that it didn`t happen before 9/11 either and Bush wasn`t there.

If Bush is the reason for our lack of attacks since his presidency I would like to hear the evidence behind the reason.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Lol...The cole? Embassy bombings? Clinton didn't do a thing, oh wait, he launched a couple of missiles. How about the first WTC bombing?

 

[linwood]

Lol...The cole? Embassy bombings? Clinton didn't do a thing, oh wait, he launched a couple of missiles. How about the first WTC bombing?

If you are going to count US military/diplomatic bases/personel I think Bush will lose...by an extremely wide margin.

I was speaking directly of US civilians in our country but..hey, if you really wanna count foreign US interests I`m still ahead.

 

[Saw11_2000]

The WTC bombing was an attack on our country. It basically should have tipped off that administration that someone wanted to kill us. Why didn't he accept bin Laden from Saudi Arabia in 96 (I think it was 96), the Saudis were pleading to get rid of him?

 

[linwood]

The WTC bombing was an attack on our country. It basically should have tipped off that administration that someone wanted to kill us. Why didn't he accept bin Laden from Saudi Arabia in 96 (I think it was 96), the Saudis were pleading to get rid of him?

Ahhh, don`t change the subject it`s not like Bush is seriously pursuing Bin Laden now.

Edit: I do believe we`re off topic.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Lol...The cole? Embassy bombings? Clinton didn't do a thing, oh wait, he launched a couple of missiles. How about the first WTC bombing?

"Launched a couple of missiles"... I don't know anyone else, but I vastly prefer a president who is responsible for the loss of even more civilian deaths than the original attack he was 'retaliating' for. I also am relieved that the troops that he's sending overseas don't have that nasty heavy protective armor to deal with. "I did not have sex with that woman" is so much worse of a lie that "They have weapons of mass destruction." (That must be why the latter got so much more press coverage than them not finding those WMD, too.) Besides, if you only launch a couple of missiles, you're only creating dozens of terrorists, but if you launch hundreds of them, then you're creating not only thousands of potential terrorists, you're also creating animosity toward America from other countries, who keep raising these silly questions about attacking a place that did not attack America, but wasn't in any immienent danger of doing so.

Actually, it's fairly simply to bring this back on topic. I read once about a job application that a man had filled out, with the yes-or-no question "Do you support the overthrow of the government through anarchy, revolution, or subversion?" Apparently, the people checking the application were alarmed when they later noted that he had painstakingly filled in "revolution."

I don't want any overthrow of the government, but when it comes to this administration, I would pick 'subversion.'

 

[BUDDY]

To answer the original question, I would say no. I think we still have a great system in place that impowers the people to govern themselves by representation. When that representation falters or fails, they then have the power to find new representation and so on. We also have a system that allows us to disagree with that representation, like most of you are doing now. Our great system also allows folks the freedom to disagree with their neighbor on issues, which is what I am doing with most of you now. Remember, you may hate Bush and Cheney, and want to "impeach" them (for what, I have no idea), but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a majority of voters re-elected him to office. In a way, when you show your hatred for Bush and Cheney, you are really showing a hatred for those of us who decided to keep him as our President.

 

[Valjean]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson.

It's the American Way!

 

[Saw11_2000]

Yes, what about that one?

Oh, here I got some news for you:

THE NEW YORK TIMES


​

* * * * *


​

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1


​

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart

Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

​

By Ralph Blumenthal


​

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people
injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars.
Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court
[on charges of involvement] in that attack.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

I don't really care that Clinton didn't stop it, or failed too, Bush failed to stop the second WTC attack, but afterwards Clinton did absolutely nothing. He basically turned America into a dog who gets beaten and puts its tail between its legs.

 

[Saw11_2000]

To answer the original question, I would say no. I think we still have a great system in place that impowers the people to govern themselves by representation. When that representation falters or fails, they then have the power to find new representation and so on. We also have a system that allows us to disagree with that representation, like most of you are doing now. Our great system also allows folks the freedom to disagree with their neighbor on issues, which is what I am doing with most of you now. Remember, you may hate Bush and Cheney, and want to "impeach" them (for what, I have no idea), but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a majority of voters re-elected him to office. In a way, when you show your hatred for Bush and Cheney, you are really showing a hatred for those of us who decided to keep him as our President.

Nice post EEWRED, we have a lot in common. Frubals to you.

 

[Saw11_2000]

"Launched a couple of missiles"... I don't know anyone else, but I vastly prefer a president who is responsible for the loss of even more civilian deaths than the original attack he was 'retaliating' for. I also am relieved that the troops that he's sending overseas don't have that nasty heavy protective armor to deal with. "I did not have sex with that woman" is so much worse of a lie that "They have weapons of mass destruction." (That must be why the latter got so much more press coverage than them not finding those WMD, too.) Besides, if you only launch a couple of missiles, you're only creating dozens of terrorists, but if you launch hundreds of them, then you're creating not only thousands of potential terrorists, you're also creating animosity toward America from other countries, who keep raising these silly questions about attacking a place that did not attack America, but wasn't in any immienent danger of doing so.

Actually, it's fairly simply to bring this back on topic. I read once about a job application that a man had filled out, with the yes-or-no question "Do you support the overthrow of the government through anarchy, revolution, or subversion?" Apparently, the people checking the application were alarmed when they later noted that he had painstakingly filled in "revolution."

I don't want any overthrow of the government, but when it comes to this administration, I would pick 'subversion.'

Civilian casualties are a sad part of war. I have a teacher who is extremely republican who actually said "If I were president, I would make Russia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and France, smoldering nuclear puddles." While even I thought this was "evil" because so many civilians would get killed, it wouldn't be worth it, he did say, is it worth my son dying for? I don't think so." Very interesting, although it wouldn't be my course of action.

 

[Saw11_2000]

That takes some faith...
Of course the Government would never lie to you, or keep things secret from you.

You want to compare it to dogs.. Fine.. Bush turned Arerica into a rabies dog.

I have no idea why you say it takes faith. I said Bush was DEFINITELY AT FAULT for not stopping Sept. 11, just like Clinton for the first one, and all the embassy bombings, and the Cole. The thing I respect about Bush is that he actually reacted.

I would rather have a insane rabies dog that will bite the person kicking it, then have a passive-aggressive dog that doesn't do anything.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Reacted? Because it looks like he "reacted" to 911 from your viewpoint? I saw personally no human reaction in the my pet goat story.
If he would have "reacted" on the intel at hand before 911, he would have reacted to that, and the planes would have never come of the ground, or reached their targets.
What you see as a "reaction" is nothing more then a continued "action" since the intell was in. Unless of course you claim that intell at the cost of $40 BILLION a year doesn't give intell worthwhile. (The famous Failed sources and Methods that have to be kept secret.)


Rabies dogs, don't survive the long term, because they don't only bite the one kicking it, but everyone else.

But the dog who gets kicked dies after it has internal hemorrhaging.

I would say 2 wars and it looks like Iran or North Korea is next, is reaction, yes.

If great intel is so important, they why again didn't we keep the embassies, Cole, and first WTC attack from happening?

 

[BUDDY]

You want to compare it to dogs.. Fine.. Bush turned Arerica into a rabies dog.

Let's compare, shall we? Al Quaida attacks the embassies in Africa, so what does Clinton do? He sends cruise missiles into Afganistan to blow up a deserted training camp, and another bunch into Sudan to blow up a pharmaceutical plant that specializes in children's medicine.

9/11. What does Bush do? Once reliable intelligence tells him who was behind the attacks, Bush vows that whoever did it would be brought to justice, and that those who harbor or contribute to terrorist operations would be delt with just as harshly. To date, we have invaded Afganistan and taken down the Taliban regime, which harbored and financially supported Al Quaida. Al Quaida has been made basically operationally destitute. The only theaters of operation where some of their members have been somewhat successful have been in Afganistan (where it appears that a small, unorganized group still exists), and Iraq (where a branch lead by Al Zarquawi) are trying desperately to stay operational. But, they do not have the global capability that they did from 1996 to 2001, and global terrorist operations are a thing of the past. Also, Bush has increased support for the end of terrorist operations in many foreign nations. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Turkey have all received help in ending their particular terrorist problems, and Italy is working on a total inihilation of the Red Brigade.

So Bush decides to invade Iraq, due to intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein is in possesion of WMD, and the FACT that Saddam is an evil dictator who has been performing terrorist act on the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ite in the south. He was also responsible for the invasion of the sovereign nations of Iran (where it is estimated that over 1 million were killed) and Kuwait (over 25,000 tortured and killed). It is estimated that millions of his own people where murdered by this dictator in the years that he ruled. Also, whether he had WMD at the time of the invasion or not, he has had it in the past, has actively persued nuclear capability in the past, and he has killed thousand of people using serin gas (Kurds). He had to go, whether you liked the way it was done or not. Yes, the intel was faulty, but the decision was right.

So, how in the world, can you even try to make that comparison in the way these two Presidents have dealt with terrorism? Please, I am really not seeing it.

 

[BUDDY]

Reacted? Because it looks like he "reacted" to 911 from your viewpoint? I saw personally no human reaction in the my pet goat story.
If he would have "reacted" on the intel at hand before 911, he would have reacted to that, and the planes would have never come of the ground, or reached their targets.

The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. Do you even realize what you are saying? On one hand, you are angry with Bush because he didn't prevent the terrorist attack from happening, he "reacted" to it. But, on the other hand, and in numerous past posts, you have said that he is an idiot for being proactive and invading Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind, either you react to attacks, or you rely on intelligence to tell you when attacks are going to happen and head them off by being proactive. But to say he is wrong for doing both really shows that you are going to not like Bush no matter what he does. No answer or action will do it for you.