[Jordan]

Bush declared war on terror along time ago now. I just have one question, what the hell is war on terrorism?

Terrorism is a means to send a message across. It's a method. How do you wage war on a method?

It's like waging war on rape or murder. This will never stop! This can't possibly be their goal (fighting a never ending battle). What will we do, keep sending American troops all over the world till we weed them all out?

What did he hope to accomplish by waging an impossible war?

Everyone I know follows this doctrine

1) bush is an idiot
2) war in iraq is stupid
3) war on terrorisim is good

I don't get it, how is fighting a never ending battle a good thing? And don't say, "oh Jordan, we are fighting never ending battles all the time, like putting away criminals, and starvation".

This post has been edited by Jordan: 15 May 2004 - 11:49 PM

[Just your average movie goer]

Oh Jordan, we are fighting never ending battles all the time, like putting away criminals, and starvation.

Kidding I couldn't help myself.

No, I understand you. The war on terrorism is a stupid bit of rhetoric to get lots of people excited about what the Bush administration is doing.

Plus, it sounds a lot better than invading other countries for our own alterior motives.

[Jordan]

But the "war on terror" came in about 2 days after 911. Do you think the Bush admin had plans of attacking way before?

I think they are using "war on terror" to steal our privacy. It keeps us paranoid, and I think the Bush admin see's a paranoid country as a united one.

United under the same fears that is.

[Just your average movie goer]

But the "war on terror" came in about 2 days after 911. Do you think the Bush admin had plans of attacking way before?

Hell yes! I do.

And when that terrible tragedy occurred, the Bush adminstration thought "Great. This is just what we need - an excuse we can use for going to war. We'll call it the war on terrorism. We'll declare that we'll wage war on any nation harbouring terrorists - hell, under that pretext, our voters will support us in invading almost any country!"

[Heccubus]

Uh, the war on Iraq was never really officially over, for starters. Remember the carpet bombings that Bush sent out shortly after being sworn in?
Afghanistan just sort of ambled along at the wrong place/time.

[Just your average movie goer]

Good point, Heccubus. In fact, America has been routinely bombing Baghdad continuously since the Gulf War.

They just say "the war is over" because nobody likes a war. It's all about the rhetoric.

My particular favourite piece of rhetoric is "peace-keeping"...

Whoever came up with that one knew what he was doing. It just sounds so nice, so routine and controlled. It really soothes the anxieties of voters.

"There's nothing to worry about, folks. We're not going to war here. We're just sending some troops over there for peace-keeping."

Ingenius.

[Ninja Duck]

I don't seem to recall war ever being formally declared. The American government seems fond of invading other countries without giving any notice to the UN, or paying any attention to its own constitution.

[Heccubus]

"Peace keeping" is such a pathetic term.
"We're just keeping the peace...never mind the AKs on our backs."

I don't seem to recall war ever being formally declared.

Re-read my last post, ND.

[Just your average movie goer]

The United States needs oil so it should invade another country? Interesting point of view. Thank you for sharing that with us.

I understand what you mean but may I suggest that rather than invade another country for their oil, the United States should look at vehicles that use alternative energy sources. They are around - the government just needs to put the conservative motor companies in their place and make them produce these vehicles instead.

[barend]

okay, first of all PC bashing is my job. I hate the ruse that is political correctness, it tries to force us to use broad group terms that alienate races more than any racial slur ever could. but...

the stupid PC lies which tell us that "they are loving people". No, they are not.

is statement that trivializes everything i've worked for...

but returning to the subject at hand...

dirty work. doing stuff that makes you look like a "bad guy"
it's true, that is a part of presidency. things like...
raising taxes to better education and hospitals, not bombing the fuck out of a country to get it's rescorces. or keeping fuel burning as main means of energy when technology has pushed us so far beyond it, just because companies who have built up a wealthy company can afford to line your pockets!!!

as for...

You will not even give BUSH props for getting ride of Saddam! War on terror? What the fuck do you expect us to do. pretend 911 didn't happen and just keep on living?

that's a good point. unfortunatley nothing really was done... they spent a little time looking for the guy responsible, now it's blurred... and they sort said screw it and went after the enemy of Bush Snr. instead.

Saddam was a consellation prize to shut up the american public.

[Ninja Duck]

So you're be saying we should be willing to kill and ruin countries in exchange for some toxic black liquid that comes out of the ground? Absurd. Your last sentence makes it even more absurd. You're saying it makes perfect sense for us to kill people for oil, but it's unthinkable that Bush might be getting foreigners and soldiers killed so he can have oil?

Re-read my last post, ND.

Okay, I re-read it twice. It says the war was never officially over.

[Jordan]

You act like terrorism is a new wave that happened with 911.

Look around the world, it's been going on forever.

I'm tired and don't want to bother retort now. The others did a good job so I'm not going to...for now.

[Heccubus]

California has large expanses of wind farms, and part of their energy is wind power. Solar power, after the initial expense of installing solar panels, is effective and inexpensive, and cars that run on fuel cells or hydrogren are not much more expensive than others. If people would stop getting a car boner over every assinine new SUV that comes out, oil consumption would not be a problem. We may 'need' oil, but we shouldn't need it that badly.

[Just your average movie goer]

Well, I think we've sorted him out, guys.

Perhaps What and Where is a congressman whose job it is to check internet chatrooms for any disgruntled American voters and try to convert them into supporting government policy.

I doubt he'll even come back to read this stuff. And if so, good riddance.

That was some amazingly ignorant stuff he said - it makes an ordinary redneck looking pretty tame by comparison.

Goodbye, What and Where. Sought out your life.