Have you ever heard a more all-embracing term to justify all the things the government wants to do for its own good or bad purposes than "The War On Terror"?
2006-09-29 14:19:39 · 18 answers · asked by Harriet 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
More democrat drivel...worse than Republicans but not by much....being Liberal isn't about being part of a corrupt Democratic Party...Vote Green...Dummy
2006-09-29 14:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by loofa36 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm not sure if you are an American or from the UK. Most of the answers seem to come from the States. From a British point of view, we have certainly the most corrupt and controlling Government this country has ever had. The Prime Minister has lost all credibility and has been proved to have lied and lied and lied again. The war on terror is largely used as a an excuse to cover other more pressing matters that they want hushed up. If they were really serious the vile people that hold protests calling for the murder of the Pope death to all non Muslims etc would be charged and imprisoned - they are not. If, however, an ordinary native Britain makes even the most pallid of comments they are charged. So I leave it to you to make your mind up. We have more laws than ever to govern what we think, what we say, how our children are brought up - you name it, it's there. Even putting electronic gadgets in trash bins to see how much rubbish we throw out! A free country - not any longer!
2006-09-30 06:32:52 · answer #2 · answered by Grannygrump 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, there was that "for the children stuff". And for the "Public good".
There is no war on terror. Bush and Chaney, blew up the WTC and the Pentagon. Blew up the embassy in Africa. Bought rockets from Iran and paid Hezbolla in American currency to lanch them into Isreal. Bush organized the attack on the Israeli olympians and Chaney threw the grenade that actually killed the atheletes in the helicopter.
Bush shot down the plane over Locherby. And I believe Rumsfield pushed that old man in a wheel chair off the hijacked cruise ship. Chaney shot those fleeing children in the back at that school in Russia. And on weekend's he goes to Iraq and sets IED's to blow up Iraqi's.
2006-09-29 22:13:48 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the Republicans and Democrats in the country have been swallowing it for years and like the local hooker they don't show any signs of stopping. That is the trouble with politics people label themselves as Republican or Democrat and if anyone attacks one or the other they get all upset about it but when the party says something like little sheep in a field they just follow along like that is the way it is supposed to be. Instead of Republicans and Deomocrats they should just call them what they are sheep and more sheep, some black, some white, and some in between but just sheep!
2006-09-29 21:33:45 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. PDQ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some will and some wont
U could argue that waging war on terror is fuelling the growth of terrorism - or not
2006-09-29 21:44:42 · answer #5 · answered by vincegill 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would think that with all the glaring human rights violations, lies about wars, and egrarious offences commited by the Bush administration there would be greater outcry from the public. Guess I'm putting too much faith in my own country.
2006-09-29 21:22:04 · answer #6 · answered by quickblur 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The War On Terror???
spell it out!!!
2006-09-29 21:27:12 · answer #7 · answered by KU 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is nothing worse than that ... apart from the one about the 45 minute threat of attack from Iraq.... maybe.
Dr Bad
2006-09-30 15:02:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about "interstate commerce"? The US government has used "regulating interstate commerce" as its constitutional justification for 95% of what it does for decades now. Yep, pot is illegal because it could affect interstate commerce. Schools get federal funding because of interstate commerce. Wetlands get environmental protection because they're connected to rivers, which have barge traffic, which affect interstate commerce. etc.
2006-09-29 21:27:38 · answer #9 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the real question should be: if the tories had been in office at the time of 9/11, would the world have arlready gone up in smoke by now?
2006-09-29 21:28:42 · answer #10 · answered by swot 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋