WELL NEVER WIN AGINST THE TERRIOST.

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#1
This is my first post here on siccness in this fourm so bare with me. Ive been watching closely all the war coverage, I read a shit load, and I have a little theroy about this so called war on terror.

We can never win. Its a pipedream to buy into this political spin that Bush is the man to do the best job aginst terriorist.
Heres my reason for sayin so. Until we as americans come to terms with the fact that all it takes is 5 terriost to sneek into our country. Take $5000.00 and go on a shoping spree at any large hardware store. Then go steel or rent 5 vans and smash them into 5 daycares or schools and burn everyone inside alive in 45 seconds.

In my opion this war is gonna take a world effort. Its gonna mean we have to team up with the less of 2 evils and pay them heavily. Bush can not do this. He can not gain the soupport we need from other countries. Hes more than proved that already. In the world view he may be the least poupler presdent in the past 50 years. I know us as americans like to say and feel that we dont need help with shit. We love to think we can handle shit alone. In most cases we can but not on this one.

All we can do with this problem is try to limit the effects of the next attacks. Cause agian its impossible to stop them. Thats not my opion thats a mathmatical fact. We can not stop them from comeing here and doin it. We have thousands of miles of land that border us on both the Canada and Mexico side. Then thousands more of oceans. If they want in their gonna get in. Its also impossible to elimate the threat. They have no country, flag, or capital. They live here and their in over 25 countries. They have millions of poverty stricken people to recruit from. And every time we try to attck one it creates enougth anger that 3 more sign up.

In my view Bush has put us in more danger than were in pre 9-11. Because while were stuck in IRAQ terriost are still recuiting, training, and planing in the other 25+ terriost hot spots. I think all we can do again is drum up more soupport and get more people involved to try to keep their numbers down and their resurces streached thin. This in my opion will help limit our chances of being attacked again. And Bush can not deliver that type of world soupport. All you have to do is look at his world approval stats to see that any foreign leader that can join up with us and help on this is gonna be trapped in a backlash from their own citizens for soupport this president.

Threaten them with cuts in foreign aid and start payin a shit load of under the table payoffs to get these people involved and maybe we can put a nice lil dent in this terror problem but well never stop it.

Its gonna take a fresh start to do this. And im no Kerry fan eighter ( although I am a demo im pretty much sick of all this big bussiness lobbying shit going on in both partys) but i feel hes the only ligitament answer to this problem.

anyway like i said im new on here and not as skilled as most yall in makeing my point clear in wrighting. i have a hard time trying to get what im tryin to say threw in print so if anyone can help drop your opion also. and of you disagree do so also.
 
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#2
Basicly I think all this Bush is the man when were in war time is trash. Cause its based on the plan that well at some point win this and be able to rest easy and thats never gonna happen. So all we can do is try to limit it and for that were gonna need more people involved and thats gonna take a shit load more world soupport. And in my opion Bush cant deliver it. Kerry can...........maybe.......but he can certainly bring more people aboard than Bush can and has.
 
Jun 24, 2004
2,268
0
0
39
#3
Spitz said:
We can never win. Its a pipedream to buy into this political spin that Bush is the man to do the best job aginst terriorist.
Heres my reason for sayin so. Until we as americans come to terms with the fact that all it takes is 5 terriost to sneek into our country. Take $5000.00 and go on a shoping spree at any large hardware store. Then go steel or rent 5 vans and smash them into 5 daycares or schools and burn everyone inside alive in 45 seconds.

I think your painting the picture a bit too easy.


Spitz said:
In my opion this war is gonna take a world effort. Its gonna mean we have to team up with the less of 2 evils and pay them heavily. Bush can not do this. He can not gain the soupport we need from other countries. Hes more than proved that already. In the world view he may be the least poupler presdent in the past 50 years. I know us as americans like to say and feel that we dont need help with shit. We love to think we can handle shit alone. In most cases we can but not on this one.
Well last time i checked America appoints our president, not the world. How can this be a world effort when many country's are sympathetic to these cowards, and will harbor and fund them?

Spitz said:
All we can do with this problem is try to limit the effects of the next attacks. Cause agian its impossible to stop them. Thats not my opion thats a mathmatical fact. We can not stop them from comeing here and doin it. We have thousands of miles of land that border us on both the Canada and Mexico side. Then thousands more of oceans. If they want in their gonna get in. Its also impossible to elimate the threat. They have no country, flag, or capital. They live here and their in over 25 countries. They have millions of poverty stricken people to recruit from. And every time we try to attck one it creates enougth anger that 3 more sign up.
We can not stop them because its a mathmatical fact? I find this hard to believe. Bush i think will start to go after the country's and people funding the cowards instead of going after them. We can win the war on terror.

Spitz said:
In my view Bush has put us in more danger than were in pre 9-11. Because while were stuck in IRAQ terriost are still recuiting, training, and planing in the other 25+ terriost hot spots. I think all we can do again is drum up more soupport and get more people involved to try to keep their numbers down and their resurces streached thin. This in my opion will help limit our chances of being attacked again. And Bush can not deliver that type of world soupport. All you have to do is look at his world approval stats to see that any foreign leader that can join up with us and help on this is gonna be trapped in a backlash from their own citizens for soupport this president.

They had been planning 9/11 before Bush was in office, Clinton will have to shoulder some of the blame. How has he put us in more danger? Invading and capturing some of there training camps hasnt kept some of there numbers down?

Spitz said:
Threaten them with cuts in foreign aid and start payin a shit load of under the table payoffs to get these people involved and maybe we can put a nice lil dent in this terror problem but well never stop it.
What are you talking about?

Spitz said:
Its gonna take a fresh start to do this. And im no Kerry fan eighter ( although I am a demo im pretty much sick of all this big bussiness lobbying shit going on in both partys) but i feel hes the only ligitament answer to this problem.
He is a terrible option for the war on terror. He wants to rekindle our alliances and listen more to our allies. If he gets in office i wouldnt be surprised if all we do is sit on our hands.
 
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#4
i respect your opion. but no im not painting the pic to easily. that is all it takes and if you can tell me how we aviod it happening then ill agree with you but its impossible cause it is that easy.

if i was a sick twisted fuck i could do it with a google search a slim jim and a few thousand dollars. so can they
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#8
First you say, we are harmless against the terrorist threat, and that all it takes is a few thousand to wipe out a daycare center...ill give you that....but then, you say we should rally the international support in order to cut off their funding and decrease the likelihood of attacks?






H-E-L-L-O?





ANYBODY HOME? You should re-read that first paragraph, friend, and see if you see anything that doesn't make a fuckin ounce of sense.




WE didn't choose terror; terror chose US. Bush, Kerry, Giuliani, Ms Clinton....it DOES NOT MATTER who is the president. It DOES NOT MATTER who is in the House or Senate, and it DOES NOT MATTER who is on the Supreme court. And it certainly does not fuckin matter what deuchebag diplomats at the UN have to say.


And at the end of the day, the only real question is, "Who's side AM I on? Beurocracy or Unilateralism?"

I choose Unilateralism.
 
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#9
your a fuck moron man.

i talk about world soupport cause thats the only fuckin way we can protect ourself aginst terriorist. right now whos handleing iran, saudi arabia, pakistan. lybia. north lorea, on and on and on.......NOOONE and need i remind your ass scence 9-11 all these places have been untouched. and while we still got 160k troops in iraq not goin any damn where for the forseeable futcher these places are where the atacks are gonna come from next.

my whole fuckin point was Bush screwed it all up by chargeing into iraq without UN soupport and then pissed off every fuckin allie we could have gained off to us when it all turned out to be based on false and incorrect intellgance.

we need more fuckin freinds in this fight like it or not and bush aint gonna be able to bring them back. thats why it does matter if its kerry or bush.

kerry can bring back soupport.

also dont be an idiot, when i said cut funding i was talking about the ablity to prevent a nucler or 9-11 type of attack.
by cutting money you LIMIT the results of their attack.
so all we will get hopefully is couple car bombs and not a fuckin nuke goin off.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#10
tadou said:
H-E-L-L-O?
You said this out loud with the flick of a bent wrist, didn't you?

WE didn't choose terror; terror chose US. Bush, Kerry, Giuliani, Ms Clinton....it DOES NOT MATTER who is the president. It DOES NOT MATTER who is in the House or Senate, and it DOES NOT MATTER who is on the Supreme court. And it certainly does not fuckin matter what deuchebag diplomats at the UN have to say.
I would beg to fucking differ. Our current leader, and his Administration, are a bunch of aging hold-outs from the Cold War who believe they can bomb terrorism away. "The more we blow up, the more they will like us!"

Bush is an ignoramus who once asked the president of Brazil if they had Blacks in their country. There is absolutely no way you can argue that Bush is a complex man of great intellect. Someone about as smart or possibly even less smart than the average American does NOT deserve to command the highest office. This whole "we are the big bear, we are the US" Teddy Roosevelt unilateralist approach is fucking garbage and it CAN and WILL lead to world war 3, after Bush invades Iran, whatever other country, and the entire Middle East decides to come up in arms against us, backed by Southeast Asia.

I choose Unilateralism.
Good idea...Let's go it alone...we will leave all of the decisions up to a FUCKING IDIOT who got a 25 out of 100 on his National Guard entry exam after attending Yale and Harvard. The most powerful weapon in the world is in the hands of a bunch of paranoid, reactive, old neoconservatives led by Baby Huey. Great approach tadou.
 
Jun 24, 2004
2,268
0
0
39
#13
Spitz said:
your a fuck moron man.

No you are learn to spell.

Spitz said:
i talk about world soupport cause thats the only fuckin way we can protect ourself aginst terriorist. right now whos handleing iran, saudi arabia, pakistan. lybia. north lorea, on and on and on.......NOOONE and need i remind your ass scence 9-11 all these places have been untouched. and while we still got 160k troops in iraq not goin any damn where for the forseeable futcher these places are where the atacks are gonna come from next.


How are these country's going to attack us? They have no means for a large scale invasion on our homeland.

Spitz said:
my whole fuckin point was Bush screwed it all up by chargeing into iraq without UN soupport and then pissed off every fuckin allie we could have gained off to us when it all turned out to be based on false and incorrect intellgance.

God damnit No one wanted us in Iraq was because they were getting fucking oil for coca cola! Why the fuck would Russia,France,Germany,Saudi Arabia want this to stop? There fucking socialists and they hate us because there capitalists.



Spitz said:
we need more fuckin freinds in this fight like it or not and bush aint gonna be able to bring them back. thats why it does matter if its kerry or bush.

kerry can bring back soupport.

also dont be an idiot, when i said cut funding i was talking about the ablity to prevent a nucler or 9-11 type of attack.
by cutting money you LIMIT the results of their attack.
so all we will get hopefully is couple car bombs and not a fuckin nuke goin off.


We dont need the whole world to like us. All we need is for them to fear us. If Kerry gets in office the war on terror will have a major setback. If we wanna cut funding we need to attack the country's that are harboring them.
 
Jun 24, 2004
2,268
0
0
39
#14
WHITE DEVIL said:
I would beg to fucking differ. Our current leader, and his Administration, are a bunch of aging hold-outs from the Cold War who believe they can bomb terrorism away. "The more we blow up, the more they will like us!"
Who won the cold war?

WHITE DEVIL said:
Bush is an ignoramus who once asked the president of Brazil if they had Blacks in their country. There is absolutely no way you can argue that Bush is a complex man of great intellect. Someone about as smart or possibly even less smart than the average American does NOT deserve to command the highest office. This whole "we are the big bear, we are the US" Teddy Roosevelt unilateralist approach is fucking garbage and it CAN and WILL lead to world war 3, after Bush invades Iran, whatever other country, and the entire Middle East decides to come up in arms against us, backed by Southeast Asia.
Israel and Britain will have our backs, the entire middle east could not handle us, with there ak-47's are rpg's. As the world becomes more advanced and we stay ahead of the pack shear numbers will just mean more sheep to slaughter for us.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#18
You're right tadou, I have none. Not one idea. Anyone critical of Bush must wish for the entire US Government to dissolve and leave in its place a hippy melting pot of anarchy and the barter system. Has anyone ever told you you're a bonafide genius?

Your "visions" and "ambitions" are going to lead to fucking WW3. I'll just be here laughing my ass off when Bush succeeds in forcing Moderate/Liberal arabs into radicalism/Islamist terrorism/territorial Middle Eastern defense, and the entire Middle East is crystallized into a US enemy.

While millions of civilians perish, you will sit around praising the great leadership and ambition of the genius Georgie Porgie. That's really the essence of Compassionate Conservatism. "It's not a problem, as long as it doesn't happen to me!"
 
Jun 24, 2004
2,268
0
0
39
#19
WHITE DEVIL said:
You're right tadou, I have none. Not one idea. Anyone critical of Bush must wish for the entire US Government to dissolve and leave in its place a hippy melting pot of anarchy and the barter system. Has anyone ever told you you're a bonafide genius?

Your "visions" and "ambitions" are going to lead to fucking WW3. I'll just be here laughing my ass off when Bush succeeds in forcing Moderate/Liberal arabs into radicalism/Islamist terrorism/territorial Middle Eastern defense, and the entire Middle East is crystallized into a US enemy.

While millions of civilians perish, you will sit around praising the great leadership and ambition of the genius Georgie Porgie. That's really the essence of Compassionate Conservatism. "It's not a problem, as long as it doesn't happen to me!"


WWIII huh? Who besides the Middle East is stupid enough to stand agaisnt our military might?