Honest question. Without BUSH & Comp. Would there even be a war on terror?

The US tried that before....letting other government do what is right.......an Germany almost took over eurpoe....twice.

Without Bush, the wartime president, i doubt very highly that there would be a war on terror of these enormous proportions we have today. More specifically, there would have been no attack on 9/11 on the USA. This attack, the brainchild of Bush's elite comrades, was something planned in order to make Bush The wartime president. So, no Bush, no NWO agenda, no war time president.

I doubt that Al Gore would have wanted war. We would have continued as we were.
Supposing the attacks really came from overseas, they would have been handled much more differently without a Bush in office. In other words, these attacks would have been handled diplomatically and not by a macho with high testostarone levels.

Originally posted by ferretman2
The US tried that before....letting other government do what is right.......an Germany almost took over eurpoe....twice.

Funny. Look at what happens when other countries let us do what "is right?"

The soverign nation of Iraq is destroyed, the fundamentalists (shiites) in the country have become empowered in government, and the cycle of aggression is only just getting started.

I'd be happier if the whole EU grouped together told us (US/UK) in no uncertain terms to "back off or else." back in '03. Then maybe there'd be peace.

[edit on 9/9/06 by SteveR]

If Gore has been elected 9/11 would of still happened, only he would of appease the terrorists instead of hunting them down and taking the battle to them. There had been numerous terrorist attacks against the USA during the time Gore was VP.

I don't care what democrats would do. The underlying issue is the military-industrial economy. Things would happen whoever is in office, and you don't get in office without being screened by all the puppet masters.

My thoughts...Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan, firepower there, but not into Iraq. Iraq was PNAC ideology; also, Bush had grudge against Saddam, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." Democrats would not have coined "axis of evil", inflaming more countries to turn against us.

Saddam, who had no liking for Bin Laden, and vice versa, was contained under no-fly zones north and south (effectively partitioning Iraq into three areas--Kurd, Sunni, Shiite). These zones were set up after first Gulf War. Cost of this containment--est one billion per year, shared by Great Britain and US. Cost of current Iraq War--one billion per day, paid for by US citizens.

Safer today? HA! Terrorism continues in Europe, and we're told still to be afraid, be very afraid (which contradicts reason for us fighting them "over there" ), as the economy implodes for future generations.

Make a mistake making a cake at home is one thing, passing a war effort off as a cakewalk is truly hallucinations and incompetence at the highest levels.

Great post, way above.

I need to calm down about all this sh*t

Let's hope they aren't dumb enough to go into Iran.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
. Enough rambling already, question is this, without BUSH, would the US be less of a target?

Nope the Islamic vs Christian/western values has been going on for thousands of years the famouse example being the crusades.
Would there be a War on Terror if Al Gore occupied the oval office on 9-11 ?
I think that a smarter approach would have been taken instead of alienating the USA allies Gore would have made current alliances stronger. The Coalition wouldnt have gone into Iraq and sufficient resources might have been devouted to the real war in Afghanistan.

America might have been more secure after 9-11 instead of just creating a climate of fear and increasing the power of the government.

Originally posted by SteveR
Let's hope they aren't dumb enough to go into Iran.

Steve, come on now,..... REMEMBER: this is George W Bush we're talking about !

I honest beleive that the USA would not be in the shambles that it is in if Bush was not president, we would not be in this "oil war" in Iraq if not for the Bush Administration,............ GREED and VENGEANCES is not a good receipe for the United Staes to start a war with a oil rich non-threatening country, named Iraq.
Iran will be next as the GREEDY Vice-president and his oil friends need and want that land too so they can lay/ run pipeline. Bush wanted vengeances against Saddam, Cheney and his oil company buddies wanted control of the land for pipeline laying and the oil too, but neither of them give a crap as to WHO or HOW MANY died in order to get what they want.

George Sr and Barb both need to be tarred&feathered for not putting Jr., in a burlap bag,tying it shut and throwing it off the side of a bridge into a river or something upon his birth.

YES, I beleive that the USA would of been better off without the likes of GW Bush & Co in charge.

SteveR, thanks for the compliment re post. You are right on re military-industrial complex--follow the money. It's obvious you care for this country, passionately. Too bad some self-called patriots care more for their own pocketbook and power. I hope everyone reads the quote you chose. Imagine, a General and a Republican.

Nanna,...sigh...since it wasn't done 60 years ago, and we can't do it today, we'll all just have to go to the polls and vote out everyone who went along with him.

Iran? Good Lord, I hope anyone thinking of going to war with Iran get out a map and compare the size of Iraq and Iran. World politics has changed since 1981, when Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor, and a replay of that scenario in Iran could have a different result today.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Of course there would always be fighting in middle east, but I believe that Bush & comp. have made us more of a target. It's good for them because they can use the fear card and spend spend spend. Enough rambling already, question is this, without BUSH, would the US be less of a target?

My answer to your original question is no, probably not. Thank goodness Bush was in there, or we'd probably still be getting poked with a stick by terrorists like we were before he was elected.

Are we more of a target? Probably, but it's more of a sign of desperation from the terrorists because they're being smashed like the cockroaches they are. No more sleeping giant reaction from the US; we're taking it to their house now!

Would there be a "war on terror"? No. But we would still be involved in some other country somewhere. The sad truth is that we are always meddling in other countries business when we dont need to,and when we need to we do nothing. (Sudan?) We are always trying to tell everyone else how to live,when we cant give ppl in america a place to live.All of that unity and support many of the countries in the world gave us after 9/11 is all but gone nowadays. We're like that annoying red headed,sticky fingered freckeled kid always breaking stuff,and leaving a mess for you to clean up.

Get our act together at home,then try to give help elsewhere.

The major point of my thread was, it seems to me that BUSH and Comp. Have glamorized terrorism to the point that it is an actually entity.

Funny, most people would think that the fact Terrorists killed 3000 American citizens kinda brought terrorism into the lime light so to speak. But oh wait, 9/11 was just a conspiracy acted out by our government and Bush right? Pssh.

Bush is fighting terrorism, yes he makes a big deal of it because we were attacked FIRST by the terrorists. The best way to stop another attack is for Americans to know about terrorism and to help combat it by keeping an eye out for suspicous activities. Our government can't protect us from everything. We as Americans need to be vigilant in stopping it as well.

So, that is one of the reasons we are reminded about it everyday.

Originally posted by MrFantastic

The major point of my thread was, it seems to me that BUSH and Comp. Have glamorized terrorism to the point that it is an actually entity.

Funny, most people would think that the fact Terrorists killed 3000 American citizens kinda brought terrorism into the lime light so to speak. But oh wait, 9/11 was just a conspiracy acted out by our government and Bush right? Pssh.

Bush is fighting terrorism, yes he makes a big deal of it because we were attacked FIRST by the terrorists. The best way to stop another attack is for Americans to know about terrorism and to help combat it by keeping an eye out for suspicous activities. Our government can't protect us from everything. We as Americans need to be vigilant in stopping it as well.

So, that is one of the reasons we are reminded about it everyday.

I respect your position. My question for you is, we have been attack four times in the last couple decades. WTC, ATLANTA Olympics, Oklahoma City, WTC2. Four times and half were done by americans, white guys. So, now that the world is changed, afraid to look at anyone with a tan on a plane, ripping up our constitutional rights, ignoring international opinion, etc... Was it neccesary to invoke this fear?

I posted a link to the atlanta bombings it people forgot.

AAC



news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 12-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Alot more than 4 times......you forgot:

USS COLE
2 US embassies
Bali bombings

and more.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Alot more than 4 times......you forgot:

USS COLE
2 US embassies
Bali bombings

and more.

I was referring to the attacks on the mainland. Not that I am disrespecting those casualties, but more of a palpable fear is placed on the states, rather than abroad.

AAC

Sadly it's not only this crowd that is fond of declaring "wars" on generic nouns.

Many on both sides of the isle have gleefully supported absurdities like the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs". Why not just be as vague as possible and declare the "War on All Bad Things?"

This should have been the "War to Exterminate Al Quaeda" from the morning of 9-11 on - anything else is just posturing BS.

Originally posted by ferretman2
If Gore has been elected 9/11 would of still happened,

I'm not at all sure of that. I don't see how you can be. You are aware that many people think this administration was complicit in 9/11? I tend to think that a different administration may have actually acted on all the warnings and prevented 9/11. We may still have a 'war on terror', but on a much smaller scale. Perhaps actually targeting the real terrorists instead of a soverign country that had nothing to do with terrorism...

Even if (in your fantasy world), you think it is possible to not only set-up but also act an attack like this in 9 months?

I didn't say they set up and acted. I said they were complicit.

1 : association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act
m/w

It doesn't take 9 months to associate or participate in something. Besides, Cheney, Rummy and many others have been around and 'associating and participating' with shady characters for many years before they found their front man to put in office.