Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
of course it would. what else do you think Bush Jr. prays for?
it could be spun either wayCameronPoe wrote:
Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
Ne0-Cons say : See, they followed us HOME!
Dems (because they are in NO WAY LIBERAL, look it up if you have to): See this war on terror is misdirected and useless, it didn't protect us.
It would just be spun one way or another and whoever shouts louder will win until people wise up. See: Iraq involved in Sept 11th, compliments of dick (i eat children) cheney.
Of course.CameronPoe wrote:
Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
The point I believe cam is trying to say is that a "staged" attack agianst america will sway the idiots....i mean undecided voters to the neo-con way of thinking.
People say "if these guys get nukes, we'll turn the ME into glass" - i think not.
- How would you know what country it came from
- If you did accuse, but there wasn't any proof, and the government denied and you nuked them anyway...would that be right?
Imo, the last thing the U.S wants is a nuclear attack (especially before Iran gets the bomb or if they never make one) and not just for the huge amount of casualties.
- How would you know what country it came from
- If you did accuse, but there wasn't any proof, and the government denied and you nuked them anyway...would that be right?
Imo, the last thing the U.S wants is a nuclear attack (especially before Iran gets the bomb or if they never make one) and not just for the huge amount of casualties.
Every nuke has a radiation signature (or something like that) unique to where it was produced.Mekstizzle wrote:
How would you know what country it came from
obviouslyCameronPoe wrote:
Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
Last edited by RAVAGE (2007-06-02 19:02:29)
yes
You mean Hillary and the rest of the anti-war morons?Reciprocity wrote:
of course it would. what else do you think Bush Jr. prays for?
You may disagree with the war in Iraq, but as soon as you try to make the case that Bush hopes that happens, you lose all credibility in an honest debate.
Even an anti-Bush attitude will admit that Bush has been completely devoted towards his goal of taking the fight to them so they don't come to us.
To answer Cameron's question, I think it would. Simply put, the latest vote to continue funding the war on terror--look at who voted which way: Obama and Hillary--against. 84% of congress: FOR.
It was all democrats except one independent from Vermont who voted against the funding.
It is clear who stands for what.
Yes and no. I think the people will be split in half. In a sense, I guess another terrorist attack will only widen the already existing gap. Some will be even more scared and willing to back up any measures the government might propose.
But the other half of the population I think will oppose the government based on the argument that their policy of fear and pre-emptive wars will not have helped in the "fight against terrorism", and therefore they will not abide any further clipping of their freedoms.
But the other half of the population I think will oppose the government based on the argument that their policy of fear and pre-emptive wars will not have helped in the "fight against terrorism", and therefore they will not abide any further clipping of their freedoms.
ƒ³
Uh, actually no. He is devoted to his own agenda. This theoretical just proves the point that Iraq is a waste of time and our fine fighting men and women. Taking the fight to the enemy is getting Osama and destroying Al Queda, but Bush cut and ran to something he thought would be easier in Iraq? And was promptly surprised. So now, we have a ton of mis directed resources whilst any serious plot can be hatched while we fuck around in the desert.G3|Genius wrote:
You mean Hillary and the rest of the anti-war morons?Reciprocity wrote:
of course it would. what else do you think Bush Jr. prays for?
You may disagree with the war in Iraq, but as soon as you try to make the case that Bush hopes that happens, you lose all credibility in an honest debate.
Even an anti-Bush attitude will admit that Bush has been completely devoted towards his goal of taking the fight to them so they don't come to us.
To answer Cameron's question, I think it would. Simply put, the latest vote to continue funding the war on terror--look at who voted which way: Obama and Hillary--against. 84% of congress: FOR.
It was all democrats except one independent from Vermont who voted against the funding.
It is clear who stands for what.
Its NOT clear who stands for what, considering all of the shredding of the constitution thats been going on to further the efforts of this 'war'. But believe what you will, the democrats are nothing but a distraction from the bigger problem. And its obviously working.
I would say here its clear who falls for what.
You can tell the trigger type and material, but its not as unique as say a gun bore.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Every nuke has a radiation signature (or something like that) unique to where it was produced.Mekstizzle wrote:
How would you know what country it came from
Last edited by jsnipy (2007-06-02 18:37:25)
The question is do Americans feel "Neo-Cons" are tougher on defense? How would an attack be interpreted? Failure or inevitable consequence?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Neo conservatives love war and death so of course.
I'm hungry, anyone want to get me a steak?
Yes
Cool, how quickly can you get it to southern california?
I must first breed the cow...
Then raise the cow...
Then kill the cow...
Then butcher the cow...
Then cook the cow...
so 3-5 years
Then raise the cow...
Then kill the cow...
Then butcher the cow...
Then cook the cow...
so 3-5 years
Damn... Can anyone get one to me before I'm 20?
Not only that, but if you see it while it's en route to the target, you can take a satellite picture of the return address.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Every nuke has a radiation signature (or something like that) unique to where it was produced.Mekstizzle wrote:
How would you know what country it came from
Yes. It would play into the hands of both liberal and neo-conservatives in America. Further excuses for "nationalization" (actually meaning the transfer of authority to the government to "empower" the people, here) and to spend more money on junker hardware to fuel an incomprehensible strategy that involves throwing truck troopers at bombs.CameronPoe wrote:
Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
I think you just asked whether or not 9/11 did. The answer is yes....CameronPoe wrote:
Would an attack by Islamic militants on the US homeland play into the hands of the neo-conservative movement in America? Yes or no will suffice. Elaborate if you wish.
9/11 was the best thing that could happen to the neoconservative movement. Through that tragedy, all manner of paranoia and interventionism became seemingly justifiable.
Still, I'm not one of those "he let it happen" types. I don't think Bush or his cronies would knowingly allow another 9/11 to occur, but they certainly would milk the successful thwarting of another plot for all it's worth.
The recent thwarted plot comes to mind....
Whatever the case, at least they now have a success to exploit, rather than just the ridiculous fearmongering of the last few years. I'd rather they actually be competent while they spin for a change....