Subaru Impreza GC8 & RS Forum & Community banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942/print/

"In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country."

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.

Well, beyond the mind-boggling "America needs to be attacked" part, to conclude that people will appreciate President Bush more after a successful terrorist attack is ignorant and horribly naive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
Yeah this idiot is nuts.. considering that right now they point to the fact that there have been no other successful attacks on US soil as proof that what GWB is doing now is 'working'.

And this chode think s we need another attack to 'see & appreciate what GWB has done'????

How about this attack on US soil called Hurricane Katrina. Can't handle a hurricane, and we think he could handle another 9-11.. ROFL.
 

·
Registered
2002, Outback Sport T
Joined
·
808 Posts
It's a catch 22. If America gets attacked, they're going to sober right back up and realize that the World greatest army needs to kick ass of those that are irrational, unreasonable, and will not talk to the international community.

However, any president that lets it happen will be the figure head that failed to protect America. So IMO, no another attack on President Bush's watch would be the last nail in the coffin.

And President Bush is goated for Katrina. When you actually research where the failures were, you'd realize it was the state's emergency response and all layers of government, not just the president.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
If the US gets attacked again the supporters will be reinforced and the anti-Bush people will be reinforced in their way. They will say Bush said the best defense is a good offense and it didn't work so it proves we shouldn't be there. The thought of another attack on American soil is scary and the fact someone said we needed it sickens me.
 

·
Modsterdomus
2000 STM RS Sedan 5spd
Joined
·
7,850 Posts
What if the next attack comes right after Bush leaves office and whoever is next pulls our troops back? Would that confirm what President Bush is doing now to be the correct action? Or would it get twisted to something else entirely?

I bet it would be "Bush started a fight and now they brought it to us."

Funny how that works.

Chris

EDIT:

What america needs is no more terrorists. No more wars. No more innocent lives lost. No more soldiers lives lost. No more hatred.

That is the only thing america needs.
 

·
The Thread Stopper
11 WRX, Matte black
Joined
·
5,783 Posts
Interesting. I don't think he realized what he was saying. Then again, I'm not gonna put words into anyone's mouth.

But, his theory is flawed. If in fact another attack happened prior to the next president taking office, then certainly Bush is going to come under more fire. He has already been blamed for the 9/11 attacks. Supporters of the war might see the good in a homeland attack, but most would view the overall action as a glaring deficiency in our method of curbing terrorist activity in the U.S.
 

·
You can't see me!
bon 12
Joined
·
4,924 Posts
Bush is in a bad spot and always will be. If you rape a child but then build a rape victoms center people will still hate your or say, "it was the only good thing and previous actions negate the positive." Same thing with bush - he sucked so much ass for so long/hard and cost so much money that very few people will ever appreciate "what he did." Was it worth the war on terror, 486 billion dollars, 3000 american lives to get to where we are today compared to pre 9/11 - doubtful
 

·
The Thread Stopper
11 WRX, Matte black
Joined
·
5,783 Posts
static_rst said:
Bush is in a bad spot and always will be. If you rape a child but then build a rape victoms center people will still hate your or say, "it was the only good thing and previous actions negate the positive." Same thing with bush - he sucked so much ass for so long/hard and cost so much money that very few people will ever appreciate "what he did." Was it worth the war on terror, 486 billion dollars, 3000 american lives to get to where we are today compared to pre 9/11 - doubtful
It's subjective, really. Some see the positive aspects from the actions taken. Most dwell on the negative.

Oh, and the 3000 Americans...are those civilian lives or military?
 

·
2.0L Turboner
94 RWD WRX & 82 EJ Brat
Joined
·
8,673 Posts
I think some of you guys are taking it out of context. He's not saying we "need" to be attacked, he's saying that it would take a drastic act for Bush to be appreciated. To me that sounds more like a slap in Bush's face than support or praise.

Regardless, that was a poor choice of words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I think he is right though. Alot of people are complaining about ti so much but if you look at WWII then its really not so bad. I mean after pearl harbor we went to war and lost a hell of a lot more than 3000 lives in six years. Pretty sure it was more than that in a month. During then we not only declared war against japan but germany also. Germany didnt attack us. But they would have. Just as Iraq would have. I mean if we are fighting there then there are obviously lots of people there who dont like us.

But anyways I think Libila is right. Just meant something drastic. But yes it was a poor choice of words and im sure he will be criticized relentlessly for it.
 

·
DWAFTW
03 Silver WRX Wagon
Joined
·
10,140 Posts
Jakoven said:
I think he is right though. Alot of people are complaining about ti so much but if you look at WWII then its really not so bad. I mean after pearl harbor we went to war and lost a hell of a lot more than 3000 lives in six years. Pretty sure it was more than that in a month. During then we not only declared war against japan but germany also. Germany didnt attack us. But they would have. Just as Iraq would have. I mean if we are fighting there then there are obviously lots of people there who dont like us.
I should know this seeing as how many WWII books Ive read, but I'm not 100% positive on this, but didnt Germany actually declare war on us?
 

·
x
2000 BRP RS sedan
Joined
·
658 Posts
What a dumbass,


Maybe he just meant we should appretiate the several terror attacks foiled in the past month, 1 that had the potential to blow up half of queens ny.
 

·
You can't see me!
bon 12
Joined
·
4,924 Posts
3000 soldiers - who all have families, friends, the works.

You can't compare this war to any other war.. WWII was a long time ago and times have changed. It is not ok to have thousands of soldiers die - WHY should it be ok? It never was, people were just less informed and the times were different.

2,974 deaths on 9/11.
Cause: Difference in ideals
Proposed/enforced solution: END TERRORISM EVERYWHERE (like, totally possible)
Realistic solution: Tighten security at airports, terrorism will always be present

3,496 US soldiers killed post 9/11
Cause: War on terror - end terrorism as we know it! Retaliation for 9/11 even though Iraq was seemingly unrelated.
Solution: Send more troops

The difference is, one of these is in our control and the other is not. People die, horrible things happen, some people suck - that is life. We don't have the right (and aparently lack the skill / know how) to fight an idea or concept. You can't just destroy people who think differently regardless of what that is - if the KKK were to come to WWU's campus they would be allowed to post their stuff up because they have the right to. Are they wrong? HELL YES - can just kill them all because they aren't liked? No.

Fighting terrorism must be on the defensive. If they said we are going to blow up the white house and we nuked them - what did we just do? Nuked people because they ruffled our feathers? Improve security all around, don't live in fear, and don't go off blowing people to pieces because they said something to piss you off and we will be much better off.

Man, if they wanted to make us tremble they should just say all sorts of crazy shit. That they are going to attack on all fronts at all times - our government would freak out like crazy. Possible do something rash like bomb somebody, and we would look foolish. They would do it a few times and then actually strike and we would be back at square one. You can't beat terrorism - period

we just caught 3 terrorists, and the 4th one just turned himself in
Well hot damn! 3 caught, 4th turned himself in. That is definitely going to change the face or terrorism foreva!!!11!1! Oh wait, its not. But it most likely saved lives which is cool - only 4 out of hundreds of thousands (millions?).
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top