heatray5d: (Default)
heatray5d ([personal profile] heatray5d) wrote2005-07-07 09:44 am
Entry tags:

london calling

Boy, I sure am glad we've got all the terrorists pinned down in Iraq. Better to fight and kill them over there than have them over here, killing us.

[identity profile] silas7.livejournal.com 2005-07-07 02:37 pm (UTC)(link)
We're sure winning the war on terror! There was even a CNN special that said so!

[identity profile] cris.livejournal.com 2005-07-07 05:55 pm (UTC)(link)
<cheney> Now, you see, this is a sure sign that the insurgency is in it's last throes. The terrorists have given up on the idea of disrupting our efforts to bring freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people, and are desperately flailing at soft targets that aren't protected by a quarter mile of sandbags and conrete. The end of evil is in sight. I can't tell you how soon it'll be here. It'll be a long, tough struggle, but the end is there. Somewhere. Yeah. </cheney>

[identity profile] xjuggernaughtx.livejournal.com 2005-07-07 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Such a fucking stupid concept anyway. Only a complete idiot would honestly think that you can have a war against a concept. So they don't like us and want to kill us, so we are going to kill them to show them at they are wrong, and when we have killed them, the world will see that we are good, and no one else will see us as a threat. Because we killed those people.

Now I think the war on drugs is a stupid war. We've spent untold amounts of money do basically make drug lords rich and jail poor people. We have never made a dent in the drug flow of this country. But I would back it many times over if given the choice between that or the war on terror.

The war on terror is actively putting us in danger. Why is it that the Bush administration thinks that Iraq is the front line? If I were a terrorist, would I attack the American troops in Iraq, where all the weapons are, or would I try to go to America, where few of the troops are and most of the easy civilian targets are?