<p>Good point, Funkyspoon. In my opinion, the airport security is there just to appease the public and make them less anxious.</p>
<p>Americans just have to move on with their lives and accept that there is a very slight risk of being attacked by terrorists, regardless of the actions our politicians take. We don't have to rearrange our day-to-day practices because of ONE event. We're letting them know that their attacks impact us. And when we forget about September 11th, they're just going to attack again.</p>
<p>Then again, it's good that we're going crazy about this attack. We're letting them know that we're scared and they're have power over us, so they don't need to keep attacking us to "remind" us of their cause.</p>
<p>"Then again, it's good that we're going crazy about this attack. We're letting them know that we're scared and they're have power over us, so they don't need to keep attacking us to "remind" us of their cause."</p>
<p>Excellent point. :)</p>
<p>anyways, i'm out. (first aid duty. woohoo! [sort of.] lol)</p>
<p>"i would disagree with tht..
- iraq is marching towards demoracy
- libya has come clean
- jordan and egypt supports US's efforts
- and biggest, recently announced peace between israel and palestine"</p>
<p>IHow exactly is Iraq marching towards democracy..by ppl voting for those candidates propped up by USA?
Jordan and Egypt always use to support US efforts even 10 years back.btw,Queen Noor of Jordan is an American and the present King Abdullah has served in the US army
As far as the recent peace deal is concerned,it just brings back the situation to the same that existed just before the intifada</p>
<p>wht i mean is tht i presume tht bush govt saw 'substantial' evidence as provided by the CIA (which is a non-partisian agency) tht iraq 'could' pose a threat to the US in 'future'. the environment after 9/11 does not allow for any error and bush govt believed tht it would be easier thn wht it has turned out to be.
never been a big fan of saddam (try to go to <a href="http://www.hrw.org%5B/url%5D">www.hrw.org</a> and search iraq) and you will find 100s of articles like <a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/%5B/url%5D">http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/</a>
i believe tht by removin saddam, bush govt not only removed a 'possible' threat against the US, but also removed a person who would used to victimize its own ppl</p>
<p>as far as saddam being secular - tell tht to the kurds and shiites families whose loved ones were killed by saddam regime...</p>
<p>abt safeguarding airports etc. funkyspoon, tht is a temp solution - you have to tk care of the problem by its roots. as far as saddam a possible threat, it is open knowledge tht he used to financially support palestinian sucide bombers, wht would have stopped him from sendin few of those down on 5th or park in manhattan???</p>
<p>btw Adides,Saddam was certainly one of the most secular heads of state in the islamic world-before 1991,Iraq was among the highest developed Arab states in any development indicator u choose to think of</p>
<p>Also,the CIA does have a past record of bungling up.I seem to remember that 9/11 also affected the Pentagon.also,The CIA was not able to detect our own nuclear tests</p>
<p>exactly...thts my point tht it was not bush's fault, it was CIA's. He was misled by the ppl in the agency..and had to act on it coz of the increased anxiety after 9/11 - kerry would have done the same thing (infact, he would have gone to iraq on his boat himself)</p>
<p>again, about the liberals and conservative...
even, if we were to agree tht going to iraq was a bad idea and tht they didnt have plan after war stuff well and tht 100s of american lives are being sacrificed...shouldnt kerry have thrown away party politics for once and supported extra spendin budget for armours etc.??</p>
<p>"wht i mean is tht i presume tht bush govt saw 'substantial' evidence as provided by the CIA (which is a non-partisian agency) tht iraq 'could' pose a threat to the US in 'future'."</p>
<p>Yeah, what evidence? Maybe Bush didn't see a connection between Osama and Saddam, but did he really think that Saddam was a serious threat? Even if the CIA screwed up or lied to him, I highly doubt that he thought Saddam would attack us anytime soon.</p>
<p>"the environment after 9/11 does not allow for any error"</p>
<p>Again, that's back to Bush trying to preserve his reputation. Not a valid reason for starting a war.</p>
<p>"as far as saddam being secular - tell tht to the kurds and shiites families whose loved ones were killed by saddam regime..."</p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not he's secular, his beliefs do not agree with the fundamentalist values of Osama. He would not be "in" on anything with Osama, and he would not feel the need to "spread his religion" (if he had one) the way that Osama does. He would stick to matters in his own country rather than bothering the US.</p>
<p>"wht would have stopped him from sendin few of those down on 5th or park in manhattan???"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, let's just put our faith in someone like Bush. I'm sure that will work out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've love to know where you're going with this. </p>
<p>If we don't put our faith in "a man like Bush," to whom should we look? Do you have a better suggestion?</p>
<p>Lets take another look at Bush. He:
A) Was duly elected by the US citizenry.
B) Knows far, far more than you or I about the situation.</p>
<p>While you migh rather "put your faith" in a man who didn't have those two characteristics, I think they are both necesary and sufficient to lead the country -- as opposed to armchair generals.</p>
<p>Also, on a seperate note, comedy central and SNL saying Bush is a moron doesn't make it so.</p>
<p>You said you wouldn't put your faith in a man like Bush.</p>
<p>Bush was duly elected and knows more than we do. If that's not enough to run the country what would you suggest? Military dictatorship with a coup whenever our leader misspeaks in a way John Stewart considers to be stupid?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are elected President twice you are necessarily fit to run the country
[/quote]
</p>
<p>de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1.) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.) A political or social unit that has such a government. 3.) The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.</p>
<p>Do you have a better way of doing things?</p>
<p>You still haven't answered my first question. If America shouldn't trust a democratically elected official who has much more knowledge than anyone else, who should be looked to? Any president who isn't "an embarrassment?" Who makes that judgement call? You? Michael Moore? Jesus? Teddy Kennedy? Should there be revolt when whatever infallable entity claims our president is an embarrassment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess the man can do no wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course he can do wrong--history will judge him. As for right now only he has all the parts to the puzzle. You're free to put him down, but you do so without complete information.</p>
<p>"Of course he can do wrong--history will judge him."</p>
<p>Why wait for history? If we know that he's a chump now, let's just say it!</p>
<p>"You still haven't answered my first question. If America shouldn't trust a democratically elected official who has much more knowledge than anyone else, who should be looked to? Any president who isn't "an embarrassment?" Who makes that judgement call? You? Michael Moore? Jesus? Teddy Kennedy?"</p>
<p>I am saying that the common people mad a horrible, horrible choice. I suppose you really do think that being elected President twice makes you a good leader?</p>
<p>One would hope that the American people wouldn't be so foolish, but there it is. Easily manipulated, and gullible.</p>
<p>"Should there be revolt when whatever infallable entity claims our president is an embarrassment?"</p>
<p>Who said anything about revolt? I am just saying Bush is a bad President.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am just saying Bush is a bad President
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We were talking about Bush in regard to Iraq. All I'm saying is that, while you're free to do so if you please, labeling him as a bad president isn't really possible until we know everything that went into his decision making process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose you really do think that being elected President twice makes you a good leader?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on in what capacaties you're talking about. I think it makes you a good leader in contrast to say a thoecractic mullah or straightforward despot. Democracy is the best system there is.</p>
<p>Tore, maybe we aren't as far apart as I thought. I thought you called me naive for saying that we can't judge the Iraq war yet because we don't have enough information.</p>
<p>If you want to call him a bad pres for ideological (economy, social security, welfare, ect) issues that is a bit easier to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with funkyspoon's 1st post. also, about leaving iraq, i do hope tht the US forces complete their job before succumbin to political pressure. afterall, talibans and afghanistan was a result coz US left too early after the war with russia...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Afghanistan was Russia's vietnam. I know the (possibly subconscius) urge to paint the US as the sole problem in the history of the 20th century is strong around here, but I assure you that the US was never fighting Russia in Afghanistan.</p>