America and terrorism.

How is bush doing anti-terrorist wise?

  • GREAT

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WELL

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GOOD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FAIR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • OKAY

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • BAD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • TERRIBLE

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
hc^patonki said:
I think bush has done a terrible work, he hasnt done anything that will stop the terrorism, actually he has just pissed those arabs off more, and spent a lot money. :roll:

Arabs, i though this was about terrorist? Sorry but i considered that to be a bit harsh, because its the terrorists thats bad not the arabs ;)
 
lol

LOL@arabs/terrorists.


Now, he could do better, but hes on the right side of the fight. Might be 2 much a cowboy, but those terrorists had it comming.
 
if the UN was with us from the beginning then we could have ended things faster and without so much spending

Yeah ... right. The US always ends up spending more and putting forth more troops when working with the UN. With or without them, it would still be our troops and our money.
 
RnderSafe said:
if the UN was with us from the beginning then we could have ended things faster and without so much spending

Yeah ... right. The US always ends up spending more and putting forth more troops when working with the UN. With or without them, it would still be our troops and our money.


But why must it always be us and our money?
 
Always had and always will be, well at least until world peace can be accompished, but thats never gonna happen.
 
Because the US is a country of war. the problem is the US has HUGE DEPTS.

JTF, I assume you meant debts? Ah well, the whole statement is flawed anyway. For an appeasing pacifist, you certainly attempt to stir the pot often.
 
panzer said:
(....) when besides the British the other major helpers are 3rd world and former Warsaw Pact countries.

err... we're there to, you know, and we’re none of the above… :p
And saying that the US are spending all the cash and doing most of the work is a strange complaint anyway. The UN wanted to wait a bit longer, the US didn't and invaded Iraq on their own, and now the UN and other countries are to blame for not helping enough? :?
I'm not saying the US shouldn't have attacked, but they did. If they would have had a little more patience, maybe an attack wouldn't have been necessary, or maybe the UN would have started an attack.
We'll never know how that would have turned out, but stating that the UN should have been "with us from the beginning" is a strange view to the whole situation, because it seems to me that "the US wasn't with the UN"

Before anyone answers, it's just my opinion, don't take it to personal. I don't want to offend anyone.....
 
My opinion is that terrorism often is handled wrong.....
were fighting the symptoms but not the reason.....
fe in israel instead of giving those lousy golan hights and the westbank to palestine as promised, they start military operations i dont understand...
kill their leaders and make them to martyrers.....and giving them a reason to justify their terrorist acts, instead of taking the wind out of their sail, and withdrawing their backup(?) from the normal non-terroristic palestines.....
and by the way i agree to 1217
 
Panzer, there are many countries helping US over there. And no most of those countries are not 3rd world. All are not helping with troops, many of the supporting countries do constibute with money. Not all are even supporting with money. Sweden has supported (although in a some profiteble way) US from the biggining of war, not only with money (through EU) but also with constribuation of arms to the troops. We supplied troops with weapons and technology systems to aid those troops in Iraq. Yes we did profit from it, so did you which makes me consider that as support. Aswell as the money.

Its a small part of that USA constribute but same time its also USA who started the war, the gouverment should (i hope they are) be thankfull for the support, even if little, that they get! So should you as a tax payer! (if you are one)

Dont forget that many countires had/have troops there, countries other then UK and 3rd world (really?) countries.

Although the Swedish goverment did not support the war politicly.
 
yeah

The CIA and the FBI could not contact each other becuse of lack of funds. it was not their fault they couldn't reach with intel they had. But we need to fight back and be on alert.
 
The CIA and the FBI could not contact each other becuse of lack of funds. it was not their fault they couldn't reach with intel they had.

The CIA, FBI and various other alphabets have a long standing rivalry and very rarely cooperate with each other. Each agency, much like local LE agencies, are very territorial and rarely, without great pain, share information. It had little to do with money, and more to do with ego.
 
They are changing some of their policy, I hear. They should work together more closely and share information a little better in the future. Anyway we digress a bit. Bush is handling the War on Terrorism as well as he can with all the naysayers up his ass about it.
 
Here we go,how come that US military with all the equipment and tech cant find one man or terorist base camp??
 
Marksman said:
Here we go,how come that US military with all the equipment and tech cant find one man or terorist base camp??

We have found MANY men and MANY terrorist camps, I do not understand what point you are trying to make.
 
Because he is running around in countries where much of the population is sympathetic to him and is therefore willing to aid and hide him.

Aside from that, I could go out and lose myself to the point where nobody could find me in an area a hell of a lot smaller than Afghanistan and Pakistan, and all the technology in the world wouldn't help looking for me. In a situation like this, it's going to be either dumb luck by our forces on the ground or, more likely, human intelligence, either from interrogations or from someone turning him in.
 
Back
Top