State of the Union

[detroitbasketball]

More importantly, the annual "Which network is broadcasting fastest!?" Contest, as compiled by me and a few friends for this year's:

ABC
CBS
Fox Business
NBC
FOX
PBS
MSNBC
Fox News
C-SPAN
C-SPAN 2
CNN

[cooljayhu]

i really hate george bush. What a douche bag

[Freak93]

I had a lousy night at work then come home and see his face on television. It is like getting slapped in the face after kicked in the nuts.

[Bearsbacker]

I have a hypothetical question ... we united as a country post 9/11 ... as it was the first attack on our soil. What do you think would have happened had we never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Our mission was to try to eliminate as much of the terrorist threat as possible to avoid another 9/11 and provide stability in the middle east. In the process, terrorists continued to bomb trains in London and Madrid ... leaving me to only ponder what kind of disasters they might have accomplished/that we have avoided had we never set foot inside their territories.

Does anyone think they (the terrorists) would have come to their senses and not harmed anyone again? Do you think the war/conflict has been successful in that aspect? Why or why not?

[Just Blaze]

buffsbacker said:

I have a hypothetical question ... we united as a country post 9/11 ... as it was the first attack on our soil. What do you think would have happened had we never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Our mission was to try to eliminate as much of the terrorist threat as possible to avoid another 9/11 and provide stability in the middle east. In the process, terrorists continued to bomb trains in London and Madrid ... leaving me to only ponder what kind of disasters they might have accomplished/that we have avoided had we never set foot inside their territories.

Does anyone think they (the terrorists) would have come to their senses and not harmed anyone again? Do you think the war/conflict has been successful in that aspect? Why or why not?

The war has its positives and negatives.....The threat of Sadam is gone, we're training the Iraqi military to fend for themselves, and more. If we didnt invade the middle east, things would of gotten worse. I cant imagine what'd happen if that were the case.

But the terrorist will NEVER come to their senses. Terrorism has been going on forever and it will not stop.

[Freak93]

Terrorists are still killing, soldiers are still dying.

[Keeper]

buffsbacker said:

I have a hypothetical question ... we united as a country post 9/11 ... as it was the first attack on our soil. What do you think would have happened had we never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Our mission was to try to eliminate as much of the terrorist threat as possible to avoid another 9/11 and provide stability in the middle east. In the process, terrorists continued to bomb trains in London and Madrid ... leaving me to only ponder what kind of disasters they might have accomplished/that we have avoided had we never set foot inside their territories.

Does anyone think they (the terrorists) would have come to their senses and not harmed anyone again? Do you think the war/conflict has been successful in that aspect? Why or why not?

Under no circumstances would we have not gone into Afganistan, that was the correct thing to do, and still is the correct thing to do, which silenced the terrorists.

Iraq is an entirely different issue, a war in which the public was lied to so they'd approve.

[ryandman89]

We had to go to war or I believe the terrorism threat would have grown out of control. Bush made a good decision going to war and some good early decisions but he's really lacking in that department now.

[Loki]

If he wanted to go to war with terrorist threats, Iran and North Korea make more sense to me than Iraq who was doing....nothing? We forgot about Afghanistan because Afghanistan was never what Bush wanted. Hell, he never wanted Osama Bin Laden, he's even said so himself. Bin Laden, the man who supposedly committed the crimes on our country on that date, is Bush's least concern.

[detroitbasketball]

freak93 said:

Terrorists are still killing, soldiers are still dying.

Better to have soldiers die, or innocent people?

Not saying I support the war in Iraq, but it's another something to think about.

[McGahee]

loki1230 said:

If he wanted to go to war with terrorist threats, Iran and North Korea make more sense to me than Iraq who was doing....nothing? We forgot about Afghanistan because Afghanistan was never what Bush wanted. Hell, he never wanted Osama Bin Laden, he's even said so himself. Bin Laden, the man who supposedly committed the crimes on our country on that date, is Bush's least concern.

Obviously nobody really knows who knew what and who misled whom, but to George Bush's knowledge (which is debatable), Iraq had WMDs, and with the threat of Saddam already there, if you CAN'T see the threat of Iraq, than you're missing something huge. Saddam and Osama went hand-in-hand with each other, because we were convinced that Saddam was giving al Quaeda deadly things to attack us with.

The way I look at it, is that if Bush was truly led to believe (whether it be lied to, misinformed, or whichever) that was the situation in Iraq, there's absolutely no question he did the right thing. But somewhere along the line there was a hiccup, whether it was Bush wanted to go in there himself or someone else did, or someone just really screwed up. That's where the war went wrong.

[Keeper]

mcgahee26 said:

Obviously nobody really knows who knew what and who misled whom, but to George Bush's knowledge (which is debatable), Iraq had WMDs, and with the threat of Saddam already there, if you CAN'T see the threat of Iraq, than you're missing something huge. Saddam and Osama went hand-in-hand with each other, because we were convinced that Saddam was giving al Quaeda deadly things to attack us with.

The way I look at it, is that if Bush was truly led to believe (whether it be lied to, misinformed, or whichever) that was the situation in Iraq, there's absolutely no question he did the right thing. But somewhere along the line there was a hiccup, whether it was Bush wanted to go in there himself or someone else did, or someone just really screwed up. That's where the war went wrong.

Saddam didn't like Bin Laden; he saw him as a radical, and didn't want to be associated with him. Iraq posed no threat to us.

[jct32]

keepereusc said:

mcgahee26 said:

Obviously nobody really knows who knew what and who misled whom, but to George Bush's knowledge (which is debatable), Iraq had WMDs, and with the threat of Saddam already there, if you CAN'T see the threat of Iraq, than you're missing something huge. Saddam and Osama went hand-in-hand with each other, because we were convinced that Saddam was giving al Quaeda deadly things to attack us with.

The way I look at it, is that if Bush was truly led to believe (whether it be lied to, misinformed, or whichever) that was the situation in Iraq, there's absolutely no question he did the right thing. But somewhere along the line there was a hiccup, whether it was Bush wanted to go in there himself or someone else did, or someone just really screwed up. That's where the war went wrong.

Saddam didn't like Bin Laden; he saw him as a radical, and didn't want to be associated with him. Iraq posed no threat to
us.

Yea sometimes America thinks we are a "Police Force" and we try to manipulate things so they go our way. Thats what I think we did in Iraq. It's not liike Saddam was a good guy either, just because he didn't support Bin Laden doesn't mean he was ok. He did start a war and use chemical warfare on a town (don't remeber what chemical it was)

[Freak93]

detroitbasketball said:

freak93 said:

Terrorists are still killing, soldiers are still dying.

Better to have soldiers die, or innocent people?

Innocent people are still falling victim to terrorist attacks.

[Keeper]

Our presence in Iraq has caused so many more deaths than 9/11 ever did to us. Americans aren't the only innocent people in the world.

[JacktheRipper]

There is really a vast misunderstanding of both Islam and terrorism in the United States. It's to the point where I don't think anyone can have a rational debate on it. Throwing that out there, because I too am ignorant of a lot of things.

Anyway, Iraq should have never happen. Bush has done a great job of trying to mix the "War On Terror" and Iraq. He did that before the war to get people behind it, and guess what, he actually got his wish. It is now the main theatre in the war on terror.

The funny thing is, you can't really fight a traditional war on terror. You are dealing with people who actually believe they are doing what they are doing for God. They have taken some of the violent passages of the Koran and use those to do terrible things. The terrorist are the Westboro Baptist Church of Islam. Unfortinatly in Middle Eastern culture, that requires a bit more of a violent touch. We will never be able to stop terrorism without a drastic change in middle eastern culture. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

This idea of a war on terror is like pissing on a wildfire to put it out.