(Untitled)

[javajazzdysu]

While shooting the political shit with my friend Josh from Massachussets, he and I got into a conversation/debate as to what the prevalent policy issues would be for the 2008 Presidential race. This convo went down multiple rabbit trails, but eventually led us to a discussion on foreign policy and the ability to win a war on terrorism.

The recent

Comments

[justaslyfox]

A pretty clear and easy counter-argument would be that the possibility that terrorist attacks may decrease over time is a sound enough reason to initiate a global war on terror. The slimmest possibility that we might be safer by combating terrorist organizations is definitely a good reason to send out our troops. That's the reason they pledged their lives anyway. No one likes war when it leads to death, but realistically, that's what happens sometimes. Sure, we can't stop terrorism completely as much as we can't stop the common cold, but coughing and sneezing less is more attractive than coughing and sneezing a lot. Having one day without a terrorist attack is surely better than having one day with a terrorist attack.

Beyond that, you never actually give a reasonable line of action to follow in lieu of the Bush campaign's plan. Yes, terrorism itself is an idea, and one can never really stop people from having ideas. Be realistic, though, what would you have the Bush administration do about terrorist attacks? Rather than just be

rebuttle

[javajazzdysu]

1) There is NO proof that our current actions at home and abroad are diminishing the chance of a terrorist attack. If anything, they're increasing the chances of future attacks. You cannot prevent an idiot from walking onto a bus with a bomb, no matter how much money you put into Homeland Security or into a "war" effort. Your arguement is about as logical as saying everyone should wear gasmasks during the flu season

<i>rebuttal</i>

[justaslyfox]

If there's a single day that our troops are preventing an attack, then they are doing their jobs as they've pledged to do. They pledged their lives to do what they're told. It's their bosses' jobs to decide what actions should be taken to defend the nation. The troops essentially put their lives in the hands of their superiors. That's the way an army must function

*sigh*

[javajazzdysu]

You're right. There are a crap load of Iraqi citizens saving up their extra money to fly to America and reek havoc on society. Thank god the U.S. troops are keeping them at bay. Every day we successfully prevent suicide.... bombings.... in...Iraq.... is a day... oh wait, never mind. The troops in Iraq are not preventing terrorist attacks in America, James. You're not ignorant. Stop arguing just to argue

[justaslyfox]

There's no reason to be patronizing. I never said our troops were preventing attacks in the United States. I said that given the circumstances, the mis-information that Bush acted on, and the level of the attack on NYC, the Bush administration and the rest of the Federal government (since you adequately pointed out that Bush or his administration doesn't act alone) acted in response to 9/11 as best as they could. At any rate, if our troops in Iraq did prevent an attack on the United States by unknowingly killing potential terrorists or otherwise, you wouldn't know about it anyway, because it didn't happen.

If you really want to blame someone, you should be blaming the FBI and other Intelligence Agencies. It goes without saying that the methods of interaction, or apparently non-interaction, between intelligence agencies has probably been years in the making; thus, the Bush administration had very little to do with the mis-information they were presented with. Of course, if you're going to bring up conspiracy theories, my argument

What a fucking dumbass!

[justaslyfox]

Dude, you must not pay attention to the news at all. Bush made comments before 9-11 that Sadam was going to "go down". Sounds to me like Bush had his mind made up a long time ago to invade Iraq.
Why would I blame the FBI or stuff for us invading Iraq in the name of "spreading freedom", and "fighting terrorism" and other bullshit lies like that?
The commission that made their decisions on security was lead by some really conservative people, dude. No wonder it made the decisions it did.
And the trade centers weren't THAT important, bro, compared to if the terrorists crashed into the white house, and into congress' buildings or the supreme court. Then maybe you could compare it to buckingham palace and parliament. But it's not even close. It'd be the same as terrorists crashing into a business headquarters in London. Not even close to buckingham palace and shit. You're exaggerating. The world trade centers were just big buildings.
The dude's right. You just want to argue with him.

Re: What a fucking dumbass!

[justaslyfox]

You'd blame the FBI because they were the ones that supplied Bush with mis-information. No president acts on his own. He acts on information supplied by his various intelligence. Also, it takes all of Congress, too, and therefore all of the Supreme Court. Checks and Balances means that everyone has a hand on the trigger when we decide to go to war. Just because George Bush wanted to go to war, or wanted to take down Saddam, doesn't mean that George Bush gets to go to do whatever he wants. He has to have approval across the board. Bush could have wanted to take down Saddam whilst laying in his baby crib, and it wouldn't matter at all today unless he had our approval. (our meaning a majority of the voting population

HAY GUYS

[anonymous]

Keep on changing the world, one LiveJournal entry at a time...

Down With Tony Blair?

[justaslyfox]

The British receive bad information too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/25/london.tube.0955/

[italia01]

Hey Dan!

I remembered today that you're living in Cincy, and I just happen to be moving to Oxford in five days.

We should exchange cell numbers again. I'd love to see you. It's been two years, right? :0

i agree

[javajazzdysu]

859.250.2426