Are you willing to fight the war on terrorism for the rest of your life..?

[kentuck]

And the lives of your children? Is this what we have to look forward to for the rest of our lives? Even Bush and the neo-cons admit it may take decades to defeat. Can't you just imagine your children living in fear for the rest of their days? Is that really what we want? Is that really necessary? Are we willing to surrender our precious freedom forever because the WTC was hit by terrorists?

Are you willing to spend our nation into the poorhouse and sacrifice whatever social needs we might have because George W Bush says that is something we have to do? Do you trust him in his analysis? Do you think he has the wisdom to enslave you in fear for the rest of your lives? Is there another option?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. I have a counter-offer

I'm willing to spend the rest of my life fighting the War on Stupidity. It doesn't sound like much fun, but with bozos like this in office, we don't have much of a choice.

[kentuck]

3. I love the idea, Disgustedpated !

War on Stupidity! But I imagine it will cost more than the war on Drugs or the war on Poverty or the War on Terrorism??

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. It shouldn't be too expensive

There wouldn't be too many costs associated with it. Here are a few I can think of:

-reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be free.
-the Fox/Limbaugh hearings would cost a little, but it's a drop in the bucket for the federal budget.
-Converting the pig farm to the Government Center for Aggravated Stupidity could be done for 500K or so, just enough to have really good security and keep them from getting out. And of course, it would cost some money to transport Reagan, Ted Nugent, and other serial idiots to the pig farm.

Kentuck, I'm thinking we'd have our ROI in 60 days or less.

[kentuck]

8. I'll help fight the war....the War on Stupidity...

The pig farm can be our very own version of Quantanamo... :)

[nannygoat]

13. Have you guys heard the other name for the pig farm?

"The Lazy W ". LOL!

[lcordero]

10. damn...LoL

That is good stuff.

[roguevalley]

2. No. This reminds me too much of what it meant to live

in the cold war and fear nuclear annihilation from the geeks
leading the world then. I HATE THIS!

[bryant69]

4. Hmmmmm.

Well my guess is that most people on here would say Of Course Not; that's why we are working to change the current occupent of the White House.

On the other hand, do we need to track down al-Queda and, to the extent possible, put an end to their murderous plots? Yes. But that doesn't require a President who is going to through us into economic chaos. It doesn't require us to live in any great fear, such as you speak. And it certainly doesn't require a President who is going to use our fear to goad us into unnecessary wars.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[maha]

5. Wrong question

Shrub's "War on Terrorism" isn't making us any safer from terrorism. Indeed, the Iraq debacle never did have anything to do with terrorism; that was just the excuse.

If the question is, should we as a nation take precautions against terrorism, including military action when appropriate? To that question I'd say, yes. I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and I never again want to see what I saw that day. And I don't want a future in which I have to worry about gas in the subways or some damnfool suicide bombers.

But the catch is that military action would be a last, not a first, resort. Bush is shortchanging measures that might really make us safer. We still don't have a national terrorist watch database that police can access, for example.

This summer Tom Ridge asked Congress for money to identify possible terrorist targets in the U.S. and study how to guard them. Why wasn't that done in 2001? The Department of Homeland Security is a disorganized mess. Cargo in ports is still uninspected. Etc., etc. Shrub is putting all of our resources into his damnfool Iraq War that never did, really, have anything to do with the "war on terra."

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Iraq is a long term quagmire

only if we accept taking our petroleum by force, instead of using diplomacy. This administration has renounced diplomatic methods, indeed the entire Republican party has renounced diplomatic methods.

[ixion]

9. absolutely not...we must end the concept of war on abstractions

it's an illegitimate war on a vaguely defined abstraction. The War on Drugs and the War on Terror should both be shelved for good. People need to realize that these types of wars are unwinnable using violence and oppression.

[Lindsay]

12. H*ll no, we won't go.

I agree with ixion...we've used this "war on" verbiage for too long. It's meaningless, and an invitation to manipulation by those in power. It's gotta go.

That said, yes, terrorism is a concern world-wide, and no doubt will be for years to come. But Der Shrubbenfuhrer has proven that tanks and bombs are not a rational approach to the problem. Not that I know what the solution is, but I can sure as heck recognize what's not when I see it.

[WildClarySage]

11. "War" is not the answer

to social problems like terrorism, drugs, poverty, etc. We need to seek solutions through other, less violent means. It's like trying to sweep a floor with a gun. Wrong tool.

[FloridaPat]

14. Most of not all of the current mess has been brought to

us and the world by the republicans. If fact, a lot of the world problems have been brought to everyone by them and their friends like Enron. We have the choice of finding out what's going on or doing this for decades. I just don't see the average American getting that smart.

[leftofthedial]

15. the "war" on terror is a sham

it's smoke and mirrors.

they need a boogie man to keep us frightened and in line. "terrorists" are just the latest incarnation of American imperialist-manufactured evil.

[moondust]

16. Don't expect much

from the U.S. in this century. A country not smart enough to reject Republican devastation is a country doomed.