or we can have it your way and wait until these muslims nuke a major US city or port.

Varus

Nothing is yet to be proven. You almost made me laugh out loud with that last post. You still haven't directly responded to my question: Do you support the funding of anti-aircraft defense as opposed to using the military, or do you simply plan on Airport security to prevent all terrorist attacks.

Don't even get started with Clinton. If Clinton would have dealt with Bin Laden when he had the chance, he would have prevented 9/11 from occurring, possibly preventing the war you so readily condemn. Clinton crumbled under the attention he was receiving from his scandal, and used extremely poor judgement in the remaining days of his Presidency. I just wish the man was a little stronger. He couldn't honestly say that he was having an affair, and along with that he couldn't follow through with the only thing that could possibly make a foreign policy like his succesful in taking custody of Bin Laden.

You act as if I'm glad that we're at war.

I do not support the funding of the war in the Middle East. I do support anything that the US does domestically with our military. As far as airports, I think what they are doing right now is okay as long as it isn't overkill. We have the technology to stop terrrorism if the government really thinks it is still a threat today. What would you think about an attack that happened here due to a gap in our security because they was busy over in Iraq?

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

The troops themselves could not defend against military attacks. Anti-aircraft and anti-missile devices could, heightened security in airports does, intelligence does, and technology does.

I'm really sorry this is true, But I'm not at all surprised that you would be.

It is not ignorance, but simply another point of veiw. "course it isn't mine either.

I would say definitely no. Reason: do you think they would prefer to use some sort of ballistic missle to deleiver a warhead, or the simpler method of smuggling in a suit case bomb, or many of them. --- Much more effective, and widespread destruction and fear would result.

I'd rather take a chance of death with a guarantee of it than guarantee death with the chance of more death. It seems that demagoguery is about the only way these ideas can be pushed.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Which Muslims? Saudi? Hmmm, they just might.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

16 pages and still on the wrong track..........

Every one is over looking the basic fact that this has been going on for years and to say that it has not would be lieing to ones self...... but hay I must be nuts right? the government would never do what this thread says... NOT........
All that Bush has done is bring it to the top of the table for all of us to see at last.

Time to move on..... most here would rather be safe and if that means flushing the constitution then so be it.

__________________
Fear the Government