I thought you lived in the UK?m3thod wrote:
No! there hasn't been an attack on our soil since 9/11 and thus this should credited to my savior georgous georgey bush.
Poll
Do you Agree with Obama's statement (read before voting)?
| Yes | 74% | 74% - 58 | ||||
| No | 25% | 25% - 20 | ||||
| Total: 78 | ||||||
ATG, I dont know why you'd say that about Obama. If hes a political whore, then the rest of the candidates from both parties are 3 times worse. You can't honestly say Obama is worse than Hillary, or McCain, or Giuliani, or Romney, or Edwards. Obama's one of the best candidates out there. (Most Democrats wouldnt even acknowledge that Bush has taken some good steps towards counter-terrorism).
Unless you were saying that because hes a politician. All politicians are political whores, to a certain extent. Obamas just much less of one than most other candidates
Unless you were saying that because hes a politician. All politicians are political whores, to a certain extent. Obamas just much less of one than most other candidates
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-06-04 20:31:34)
That's exactly what I was thinking.ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
You're comparing a UN no fly zone restriction to the military invasion, overthrow, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq? Its ok to say that Hussein had it coming, but to try and spin it by saying we were finishing the job is just plain dumb. Any historian or anyone who knew shit about Iraq could see it would be a hellhole once we overthrew Hussein. Its hardly finished anything, dude.ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
That being said, should we have occupied the country enforcing the U.N. mandated no fly zone forever?
Read, we were occupying Iraq since the end of Gulf War I. The idea was to bring conclussion to that.
Name a politician who isnt...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking.ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
That's right. No muslim would haev thought of trying to attack New York City before we invaded Iraq- wait a minute. Oh, yeah.CameronPoe wrote:
No. An attack on New York City was foiled only last week, one of the would be terrorist actually hailing from Brooklyn... The Madrid and London bombings weren't prevented by Iraq - two places never before attacked by Islamic militants.Leprechaun56 wrote:
Dosent the war kind of detract from global terrorism because of all the "jihadists" from other countries go to iraq to fight the us troops?
You must have forgot all the stuff Iraqi's were telling us before the invasion.Spearhead wrote:
Any historian or anyone who knew shit about Iraq could see it would be a hellhole once we overthrew Hussein.
Spearhead wrote:
Name a politician who isnt...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking.ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
In all seriousness, while not necessarily safer, I think that it has made the world more aware of terrorism. Before 9/11 and the Cole bombing, I figured it was some wierd fad from back in the 70's that the Rainbow Six guys were supposed to deal with. My perspective has definately changed since that time....
Well, a lot more Muslims certainly have more reason to consider attacking NYC now than before the second Iraq War. It doesn't make it right, but there's no denying that invading a country in an unpopular war will make you more enemies than friends.imortal wrote:
That's right. No muslim would haev thought of trying to attack New York City before we invaded Iraq- wait a minute. Oh, yeah.CameronPoe wrote:
No. An attack on New York City was foiled only last week, one of the would be terrorist actually hailing from Brooklyn... The Madrid and London bombings weren't prevented by Iraq - two places never before attacked by Islamic militants.Leprechaun56 wrote:
Dosent the war kind of detract from global terrorism because of all the "jihadists" from other countries go to iraq to fight the us troops?
notCameronPoe wrote:
Of course.
Even popular wars tend to do that, though. It is seldom that the other side really embraces you for invading them. Well, okay, there are the rare exceptions, which usually involve surrendering to the US and asking for international aid, then forming a pro-us dictatorship and sending all the funds to numbered accounts in Zurich in case you are eventually overthrown, but that hardly ever happens.Turquoise wrote:
Well, a lot more Muslims certainly have more reason to consider attacking NYC now than before the second Iraq War. It doesn't make it right, but there's no denying that invading a country in an unpopular war will make you more enemies than friends.imortal wrote:
That's right. No muslim would haev thought of trying to attack New York City before we invaded Iraq- wait a minute. Oh, yeah.CameronPoe wrote:
No. An attack on New York City was foiled only last week, one of the would be terrorist actually hailing from Brooklyn... The Madrid and London bombings weren't prevented by Iraq - two places never before attacked by Islamic militants.
The world's always been dangerous, even before the 9/11 attacks.
LOL... nice reference... I know what you mean, but still... I don't understand how anyone can honestly believe that the Iraq invasion improved our security or general status in the world.imortal wrote:
Even popular wars tend to do that, though. It is seldom that the other side really embraces you for invading them. Well, okay, there are the rare exceptions, which usually involve surrendering to the US and asking for international aid, then forming a pro-us dictatorship and sending all the funds to numbered accounts in Zurich in case you are eventually overthrown, but that hardly ever happens.Turquoise wrote:
Well, a lot more Muslims certainly have more reason to consider attacking NYC now than before the second Iraq War. It doesn't make it right, but there's no denying that invading a country in an unpopular war will make you more enemies than friends.imortal wrote:
That's right. No muslim would haev thought of trying to attack New York City before we invaded Iraq- wait a minute. Oh, yeah.
Things just seem to have gotten worse than before the war. Let's hope we're not stupid enough to attack Iran.
The US is less safe because Iraq has totally discredited the idea of beneficial US intervention. But beneficial US intervention, such as building roads, hospitals, power plants etc.--without war--should be an important part of any serious plan to fight radical Islam.
iraq has become a sort of proxy war for the war against terrorism. terrorist funding/resources/manpower is being funneled toward iraq.
has iraq addressed the problem of terrorism? no
has it drawn attention away from attacks on US? probably
is the world more dangerous today? no...about the same.
has iraq addressed the problem of terrorism? no
has it drawn attention away from attacks on US? probably
is the world more dangerous today? no...about the same.
I agree ...however I feel the Iraq war HAS made the world a slightly more dangerous place in that it has provided a region for terrorists to set up strongholds where once Hussein would have ruled with an iron grip. The attacks in Madrid and London were also a watershed in Islamic terorism, would Madrid have been seen as a target if they were not militarily active in Iraq?superfly_cox wrote:
iraq has become a sort of proxy war for the war against terrorism. terrorist funding/resources/manpower is being funneled toward iraq.
has iraq addressed the problem of terrorism? no
has it drawn attention away from attacks on US? probably
is the world more dangerous today? no...about the same.
Anyone thinking the World is safer now is just deluded. Most extremists now have more hatred for the West. Maybe 9/11 would not have taken place if the US would not have used its veto every time the UN imposed a sanction against Israel. Who knows? I'm not justifying the attacks, but looking for motivations. The attacks in Madrid and London did happen coz of this war. So, I don't think the World is a safer place thanks to this war.
Thats...............well, a dumb question.sergeriver wrote:
He's a politician, period. But you failed to answer the question, is this a more dangerous world because of this war?
About like me asking, Am I really that tall?
Not a good analogy, since the height of a person is a fact and the other is a matter of opinion.Cougar wrote:
Thats...............well, a dumb question.sergeriver wrote:
He's a politician, period. But you failed to answer the question, is this a more dangerous world because of this war?
About like me asking, Am I really that tall?
The world is definitely not a safer place, I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that.sergeriver wrote:
Anyone thinking the World is safer now is just deluded. Most extremists now have more hatred for the West. Maybe 9/11 would not have taken place if the US would not have used its veto every time the UN imposed a sanction against Israel. Who knows? I'm not justifying the attacks, but looking for motivations. The attacks in Madrid and London did happen coz of this war. So, I don't think the World is a safer place thanks to this war.
Looking for motives for the 9/11 attacks is still a big taboo. I've always said that the innocent people killed on 9/11 were the victims of several years of questionable US foreign policy. This is NOT a justification of the attacks, it is just an opinion regarding the motivation behind the attacks and while I fully believe the attackers should be fully blamed for the attacks I feel that if I were an American I would question the way in which my country has conducted its foreign affairs in such a way that it would 'inspire' such an act ...of course any talk of this nature is shunned as 'anti-American'.
No, I'd say that they are both fact. You can look up the number of deaths in Iraq and abroad that are directly linked to the war and/or retaliation/protest/revenge against the war as opposed to the numbers before and come to a clear conclusion that its a fact.sergeriver wrote:
Not a good analogy, since the height of a person is a fact and the other is a matter of opinion.Cougar wrote:
Thats...............well, a dumb question.sergeriver wrote:
He's a politician, period. But you failed to answer the question, is this a more dangerous world because of this war?
About like me asking, Am I really that tall?
Xbone Stormsurgezz