You really don't feel safe in this country? Serious? Because I do. I feel safe and sound, snug as a bug in a rug.
Don't know what to tell you. Even during the sniper crap last summer, I felt perfectly safe. And the SOBs were caught 5 miles from my house. 
We have very little incidence of terrorism in this country and I'm not a person who deals in "possiblities". I'm into "probabilities". So I don't worry about things that rarely happen.
You make a good case for closing our borders but it's never gonna happen. Too many Democrats would lose their ever-lovin' if Bush even suggested it.
We have very little incidence of terrorism in this country and I'm not a person who deals in "possiblities". I'm into "probabilities". So I don't worry about things that rarely happen.
You make a good case for closing our borders but it's never gonna happen. Too many Democrats would lose their ever-lovin' if Bush even suggested it.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
"Or how about the toy gun stunt last week? "
TOYS make you feel unsafe? You've GOT to be kidding.
Just read something on Coulter's website - last year, 262 civilians were killed on the streets of DC (compared to 239 of our soldiers in all of Iraq).
Maybe you're on to something - DC is *definitely* far more dangerous than Iraq!
TOYS make you feel unsafe? You've GOT to be kidding.
Just read something on Coulter's website - last year, 262 civilians were killed on the streets of DC (compared to 239 of our soldiers in all of Iraq).
Maybe you're on to something - DC is *definitely* far more dangerous than Iraq!
Last edited:
The value bantered around by many says "hundreds". If you are looking for a specific number it will never be found.
I take it that you believe that fanatics from Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and even possibly some from here haven't gotten involved? If you include many of the "criminals" that Iraq released prior to the beginning of the conflict and those that choose to attack their own people it could reach thousands, which is probably more realistic.
I realize it's futile to continue this with you as you don't care to see the truth. Hell, even the Congress recognized that Al Qaeda and other terrorists were there when they passed the legislation authorizing military action against Iraq (see PL107-243).
Originally posted by http
Ken, you really must READ before you post. I realize its a lot after some time, but nothing is more annoying than having to repeat myself.[/quote]
All you do is repeat yourself with nothing but BS and how you hate Bush.
Ken, you really must READ before you post. I realize its a lot after some time, but nothing is more annoying than having to repeat myself.[/quote]
All you do is repeat yourself with nothing but BS and how you hate Bush.
The war on terror didn't start in Iraq, it has continued on to there, but the starting point was with our going after the Al Qaeda and Taliban that supported them.
This is the only thing you have said that makes since. You aren't worth the effort.
Okay, I get it now.
Why did we "start" with Iraq? Simple - they're the ones that invaded another country and then disregarded the cease-fire terms set down by the UN back in 1991. The other countries you mentioned haven't, to my knowledge, done this.
This business with Saddam has been going on for over 10 years. Bush finally decided to do something about it.
This is not part of the War on Terror, which was a direct result of the 9-11 attacks. I suppose we could go after Syria, Canada, and the like but, again to my knowledge, they haven't committed an act of terrorism on US soil nor have they invaded another country, gotten their butts kicked out and had sanctions placed on them.
You could, however, make a case that Iraq is a terrorist nation, but I'm not sure if that's what you call it when a leader is terrorizing his own nation.
Http, you've said that Saddam might be a great guy who didn't deserve this. That's a conversation ender, IMO. If you don't believe he did any of the things the news guys, our government, our intel and his own citizens say he did, then there's nothing left to talk about.
Why did we "start" with Iraq? Simple - they're the ones that invaded another country and then disregarded the cease-fire terms set down by the UN back in 1991. The other countries you mentioned haven't, to my knowledge, done this.
This business with Saddam has been going on for over 10 years. Bush finally decided to do something about it.
This is not part of the War on Terror, which was a direct result of the 9-11 attacks. I suppose we could go after Syria, Canada, and the like but, again to my knowledge, they haven't committed an act of terrorism on US soil nor have they invaded another country, gotten their butts kicked out and had sanctions placed on them.
You could, however, make a case that Iraq is a terrorist nation, but I'm not sure if that's what you call it when a leader is terrorizing his own nation.
Http, you've said that Saddam might be a great guy who didn't deserve this. That's a conversation ender, IMO. If you don't believe he did any of the things the news guys, our government, our intel and his own citizens say he did, then there's nothing left to talk about.
Pardon me if I am not following your logic, but that last statement bugs me a little. I'm not Muslim or an Arab, but statements like that get under my skin a little.
Are you saying that Muslims and Arabs cannot be trusted in general (you seem to smart for that). How would rounding up muslims and arabs no be any different from the camps set up for the Japanese in WWII? Perhaps I'm being too trusting, but I don't think that race or religion necessarily call your fidelity to the USA into question.
Why stop at Muslims? Why not lock up the Jews since they're caught up in this from the Israeli position? Why not the Catholics or protestants since they claim a faith with Christ? Do I need to make ridiculous assertions like this about race?
So willing to give up your freedom for an appearance of safety. None of what you suggest would work unless we want to encase ourselves in a bunker and that would not be freedom, it would be prison. Ben Franklin covered this nicely when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Http. you opened my eyes today. Serious. In the past I've expressed those same views - why not be tracked and spied on by our government? If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't disturb you. But now that you've laid it out, I'm having second thoughts. I'll think about this some more and get back with you.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I'm with you - get legal or get out. I think we're WAY too lax about security when it comes to immigration and visitors. Larry's ex-wife used to work for an immigration lawyer and she said the cases that came across his desk would curl your hair.
I see your point about domestic security but I still think there's a need to topple hostile regimes and remove rabid dictators from power. No reason why we can't do both.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I'm with you - get legal or get out. I think we're WAY too lax about security when it comes to immigration and visitors. Larry's ex-wife used to work for an immigration lawyer and she said the cases that came across his desk would curl your hair.
I see your point about domestic security but I still think there's a need to topple hostile regimes and remove rabid dictators from power. No reason why we can't do both.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Hey jlabsher... how come you think we weren't provoked? The wonderful leaders of Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc., have (had) all declared or called for jihads, holly wars, against the United States. If these guys are going to build support for themselves within their countries, or try to gain international support, by declaring war against the United States, I say give them the war that they're calling for.
BOOM
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Hey Bruzilla if you meet somebody in the store parking lot who takes a spot before you do you shoot them dead? Same analogy, the "bigger" man would walk away. Oh, some countries said death to Americans big whoop, what country (including U.S. youth of the sixties) hasn't said that in the last 50 years?
I'm sure you are quite a proponent of "love it or leave it" or "better dead than red" or "kill a commie for mommy" whatever trips your trigger.
American embassies around the world are now fortresses of concrete & steel where the ambassador's staff hides in fear of the locals, downtown DC is a true paranoid's wet dream, the whitehouse and capitol are still off limits to 99.9% of american citizens. You go through metal detectors to go to a ball-game for gods sake, we were subjected to metal detectors last week at the national botanic garden (A GARDEN!) We must be doing something right for the whole world to love us so much huh? I trace it all back to your beloved dumbya. Because of his one track mind about invading Iraq (he wanted to do it even before 9/11) over 50,000 people have died, he's a great man myazz.
I'm sure you are quite a proponent of "love it or leave it" or "better dead than red" or "kill a commie for mommy" whatever trips your trigger.
American embassies around the world are now fortresses of concrete & steel where the ambassador's staff hides in fear of the locals, downtown DC is a true paranoid's wet dream, the whitehouse and capitol are still off limits to 99.9% of american citizens. You go through metal detectors to go to a ball-game for gods sake, we were subjected to metal detectors last week at the national botanic garden (A GARDEN!) We must be doing something right for the whole world to love us so much huh? I trace it all back to your beloved dumbya. Because of his one track mind about invading Iraq (he wanted to do it even before 9/11) over 50,000 people have died, he's a great man myazz.
Do you trace 9/11 back to W as well? What did Hillary do to engender the love and respect of the third world such that Al Qaeda decided to spend years and tons of money to pull off their attack? I don't blame Hillary either, but think your hanging the condition of the world on W makes just about as much sense.
How did you come up with 50,000 deaths? How does that compare with how many Saddam, Uday and Qusay would have killed anyway? From what I understand one of the biggest problems facing everyday people in Iraq is about 60% unemployment present while things get reorganized.
In the day of instant gratification and microwave meals we need to remember that not all problems are resolved quickly. Yes, its a terrible shame that we are losing soldiers day after day, but had we bivouacked them in any major US city, they would likely have died at almost the same rate but for different reasons.