Discuss

I voted Yes. That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

You don't negotiate with terrorists. You don't negotiate with Al-Qaeda.

 

Now Iraq is a whole different can of worms. This war should have never happened. But Bush did not want to use diplomacy and chose to alianate our allies.

 

Your question is somewhat vague. You should have asked: Should we negotiate with terrorists. There are instances in which for the purpose of national security it is better to use diplomacy rather than force. Now Bin Laden.... Nuke em'!

I think we should take out all terrorists using any means necessary, but Iraq didn't help us defeat terrorism.

i'm just curious, and i have not developed an opinion on this yet, but why is there a problem with negotiating w/ terrorists?

 

would that not set a better example?

I voted Yes. That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

They have nothing to do with it....yet terrorists live their freely. :confused

 

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is....they are terrorists. :mad :

I voted Yes. That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

They have nothing to do with it....yet terrorists live their freely. :confused

 

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is....they are terrorists. :mad : I think the anti-Bushies are making the case that we're wrong for pursuing terrorists other than those that were behind 9/11.

 

Go after those sumbitches. :thumbup

I voted Yes.? That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like? Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

They have nothing to do with it....yet terrorists live their freely. :confused

 

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is....they are terrorists. :mad : I think the anti-Bushies are making the case that we're wrong for pursuing terrorists other than those that were behind 9/11.

 

Go after those sumbitches. :thumbup I'm 400% Anti-Bush, but I think we need to keep fighting terrorists, just not in Iraq.

Let's just bomb everyone. Don't want all of our defense money going to waste.

I voted Yes. That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

They have nothing to do with it....yet terrorists live their freely. :confused

 

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is....they are terrorists. :mad : Agreed. Although Iraq is not the root of all the terrorists, and is not the home base so to speak.

 

Saddam was, however, funding Palestinian terrorists to mess with the Israelis. So, even though they weren't all terrorists messing with us, there was still terrorist activity in Iraq. Was the war there necessary, I don't know...

I voted Yes.? That means bomb the bastards who outright help terrorist like? Afghanistan, but not countries that have nothing to do with it like Iraq.

They have nothing to do with it....yet terrorists live their freely. :confused

 

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is....they are terrorists. :mad : I think the anti-Bushies are making the case that we're wrong for pursuing terrorists other than those that were behind 9/11.

 

Go after those sumbitches. :thumbup I'm 400% Anti-Bush, but I think we need to keep fighting terrorists, just not in Iraq. You are 400% a moron.

I don't believe in calling names, I believe in God, the will of the American people, and that President Bush will guide us through this time.

President Bush is a man with vision. When this is all analyzed with the idea of U.S. security in the forefront it becomes clearer that the way he is conducting this is the best way,by far.

 

Think about things without the Patriot Act. This free country,would never be able to defend itself from those within who would do it harm.

I don't see how the Patriot Act is an invasion of civil liberties.

 

1) It set up a special court to get warrants used quickly for terrorism, but they still have to get a warrant.

2) It lets agents of the US Government report any intelligence gathered in plain sight.

I don't see how the Patriot Act is an invasion of civil liberties.

 

1) It set up a special court to get warrants used quickly for terrorism, but they still have to get a warrant.

2) It lets agents of the US Government report any intelligence gathered in plain sight.

I agree with some parts and others I dont. It helps in some ways because it is very hard to get warrants of any kind, which the act remedies. However, I think its so broad that it has great potential for abuse. Seems like there is growing debate in the Senate about this act and whether it will become permanent. Does anyone here think it should be permanent?