Who actually thinks Bush is winning the war on terror?
 

You are a fool if you do. :)

Depends on how you look at it. If his intention was to raise the number of terrorists and terrorist attacks.. then yeah, he's doing a great job.

He does. (8char)

theking?

The U.S. government claims it's making winning and points to no attacks as proof. You claim they are not and you have offered no proof. You should support you're statement so people can understand your position.

I give Blair a few more months until Labor pushes him out for Brown. England has now paid a high price for playing along with Bush's lies. Today's 40 deaths and 700 injured hang above him like the Sword of Damocles.

I doubt that it is possible to win that war...you can have peace for 2-3 years and then one surprise attack with thousands of cassaulties....

I really hope that english is not your first language.

Anyway, do we really need to point to proof that the war on terror is not working? If we do, I'll just point to my television and say "Turn it on to any channel"

don't see many Bush sigs flying anymore... where is that assclown 12clicks?

I am always amused at the verbal response from the TSA jackboots that violate my civil rights every time I walk through airport security - "Well.. we haven't been attacked since September 11th! We must be doing our jobs." I always laugh. That comment is like celebrating the fact that your unlocked, open door home hasn't been burglarized.

Bad edit. I originally said "making progress" then changed to "winning". My bad.

Yes, to constructively make a point you need to back it up. That's how debate works.

Bush is president of the U.S. There have been no attacks in his country since 9/11 is the point his government makes when saying they are winning the war on terror.

War does not create winners. Its a loose-loose game.

But no attacks on US soild is not proof of anything.... since there's no proof that there ever would have been attacks on US soil if Iraq wasn't invaded.

There is however a lot of proof of more terrorism in London, Iraq and many other countries around the world since the invasion of Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/..._explosions_34

U.S. Raises Alert to Orange for Transit

Boy... a little late, no? The U.S. is drowning in stupidity.

How are your civil rights being violated? Taking a commercial flight is not a "right." If you don't like being searched, don't fly.

has your neighborhood been blown up by terrorists lately? No? then we must be winning.

Why cant you shut the fuck up and grieve for the people of London you piece of shit. Oh Im curious btw isnt escorting illegal?

Uhmm... I don't see how someone can't grieve for the people on London and question the tactics of the US at the same time?

I don't think the government considers the Iraq war and "The War on Terrorism" the same thing. He can keep fucking up in Iraq but as long as the U.S. suffers no more terrorist attacks he can claim victory on the terrorist front.

bush to blair

if your having terrorist problems i feelbad for u son, ive got 99 oil wells and your bitch ass dont own 1

I thought your mom grounded you from the porn business? Just STFU kiddie with your preteen angst. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Actually...

1) the right to free travel (freedom of assembly) is protected (especially if you are a shareholder of the airline). While this argument is weak, it still holds weight.

2) airport security by law should only be 'limited' search. To demand that you remove your shoes, etc. without PC, exigent circumstances, or a judge's warrant is a violation of the Constitution. Even after passing the object screening without setting it off, TSA will do a wand search without PC. This is illegal... in fact.. there are over 500 lawsuits in Federal court on this topic. The DOJ has been delaying the cases as much as possible because they know the government will lose.

So you've stopped using oil to really stick it to The Man and his cronies, I assume? Or are you still part of the problem?

I have always hated flying and now I have even more good reasons for refusing. But earlier this year I had to. When passing thru security removing your shoes was optional, you were informed that cooperating would "speed the screening process." I didn't remove mine, was wanded and had no problem. I was not aware this was alowable without probable cause.

That line always gets up my crawl when various politicals use it on the Sunday morning talk shows. Just once I'd love to see a host haul off and passionately explain how ignorant they are for saying such.

There is no winning the war on terrorism. Hopefully you can stop some acts based on intelligence, but there is no way to eliminate all of those with the determined mindset who have patiently integrate into the background, and are in no hurry as they don't want to flub it when it comes their time to accept martyrdom...

And that's why I feel our current response isn't working. With such a patient and resourceful enemy the ones we are generating today can keep the world stocked for decades.

Are you serious?? Did you forget the whole "funding Al-Qaeda" crap that they were spewing for the longest time? And having "proof" of ties between Saddam and Bin Laden for so long.... only to... forget about it... and turn to "liberating the people" instead.

[QUOTE=mardigras]There is no winning the war on terrorism. Hopefully you can stop some acts based on intelligence, but there is no way to eliminate all of those...[QUOTE] This is the reality. You can't win a "war on terrorism" by definition of the word "terrorist"! How can you win against an undeclared enemy? Anybody can walk out their door and go stage a "terrorist attack" by simply doing something fucked and claiming they did it as an act against the government. How can you win against that? It's absurd.

No, not at all. I'm not talking about my position, I'm talking about the stance the government takes.

Dude you must have an IQ of 2. We did not attack Iraq because of terrorism, we attacked Iraq because he was violating UN resolutions - The UN resolutions stated that INSPECTORS MUST HAVE ACCESS TO ALL FACILITIES - Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq.

There was a multitude of reasons we went to war with Iraq, to say this is about oil is fucking moronic because war threatens oil supplies not helps it. You are so fucking stupid how do you even do business? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

And your answer to the million dollar question is......?

A multitude of reasons is right... none of them were true, but there sure where a lot of them :1orglaugh

this will put Blair's political career shaky unless he makes drastic action
without the help of Bush. :2 cents:

:smokin

To say that we are winning the war on terror is proven because there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11 ask yourself how long it was between the first WTC attack and the 2nd.

Of course there were a few failed attempts in between that time, but imagine what's lurking for us out there now.

We are not winning shit. We have stirred a hornets nest, and have created even more anger for generations to follow.

Bush has only created safe heaven for his own soil which is what his countrymen are expecting from him. Now, those coalition forces who belived the lies Bush spread to get their support to go into WAR in Iraq is now paying the high price.
how pity

:smokin

And our absurd leader keeps declaring "We are winning the war on terrorisim"...

Instead of "mission accomplished" photo ops and "We are winning" speeches, they should not call it a war at all. They should take a similar approach as they do with the anti drunk driving campaign... "You drink, you drive, you lose". Do a G8 meeting on that then work with and encourage countries to throw around the bucks as cash rewards for info. Make it easy for someone to report and quietly pick up a cash reward for information that helps would go further than any bombing and so called "intelligence". :upsidedow

This is something I told my former German business partner a long time ago..back when the war just started.

One of the reasons..and not the only reasons but one of the reasons to go into Afghanistan and Iraq was to force the terrorists to deal with us there, keeping them focused on our guys in the field and not the US.

I also told him that we may not stop all terrorist attacks, but we could limit them, and this would then force them to go after softer targets in Europe which they have done.

Greedy as Bush should have laned on his head when he fell the other day.

He's done a fucked up job since he's been there. Name the good things that this fucker has done?

Fattened the pockets of "the base"?
Well, that's a good thing, for them :upsidedow

Saddam kicked those inspectors since he was not hiding anything at all.
If there was indeed any proof that he was hiding WMD, then how come the UN
and US Congress come-up with their own findings that there was no evidence of deadly weapons. :2 cents:

:smokin

george bush thinks george bush is winning. so that's like a half a person at least.

a war on terrorism???
but I thought the whle thing was for vast oil fields of Iraq

how come no one ever told me the truth about it??? :disgust

See above^:)

I agree. We are all at the losing end here. Bush has started a war which he expects to end in 2010? Damn, there will be lots of Muslim haters by then and
willing to blow up themselves. Pity how this world is starting to shape up.

:smokin

Give me a break, a terrorist group like al queda can do 20 attacks on the same time,on different places fairly easy. Have a look at your country's map and then tell me how you can protect any public building, school, metro from a van that will park next to it and explode killing unsuspicious citizens. It didn't happen because they didnt want to happen. I would wonder more on why not at this point rather thinking beyond human limits security success.

Shh.... people are supposed to forget about the folders full of evidence about exact locations that Iraq is hiding WMD's.

Bush has wasted billions of tax dollars, and even worse, 1000's of U.S. lives fighting this war on terror. To think if Bush had not been president, all those American soldiers who died in Iraq, would still be alive.

uh I think you need to read my post or run it through the translator again...LOL because I'm seriously doubting we're disagreeing here.

What I was saying is that people can't use the whole "we haven't had an attack since 9/11" as saying we are winning.

Because in the past it was years between attacks and it may be years again...they are here in the states, I guarantee it and just waiting, it will happen again and this war has not made us any more secure.

ah sorry man, i missed last phrase.

The answer. The end :upsidedow