I do take umbrage at the hillbilly comment, though. Some of my best friends are (or were) hillbillies.
My apologies to Porterville for correcting his grammar and spelling. It's not really that bad. It would not require even a billion well-spent dollars to fix, as long as the government schools weren't given the responsibility.
However, a larger challenge lies ahead if America is to ever catch up with the rest of the civilized world in the fine art of argumentation.
Americans must, simply must outgrow the childish habit of using a false dichotomy to try to prove a point. You know what this is from the first grade: Would you rather be a duck or a rabbit? Are you a bully or a wimp? Either pay me now or pay me later.
Porterville's choice is to spend a trillion dollars on one war in Iraq to save our country "3 or 4 more trillion to terrorist."
That, my FRiends, is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or. It's not a binary choice. There are other options, and most every thinking person recognizes that.
You all will recall President George W Bush's saying shortly after the attacks of 9/11/2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Oh?
Does that mean anyone who opposes Bush's domestic surveillance programs, his undeclared war against Iraq, his imprisonment of American and foreign terrorism suspects without charges, or his administration's bungled immigration proposals is siding with the terrorists?
Not if this is still a free country. Not if Americans value their political independence. Not if we recognize and refuse to accept false dichotomies.
Without a nation to defend, you likely would not be able to bring up such salient points. What "domestic surveillance programs" are you speaking of? Wiretapping phone calls to the Middle East?
Your world is, no doubt, nicely aligned along clear 'logical' lines. The one the rest of us live in isn't.
Just re-read this. You mean such fine dialectical reasoning as World War One?
With the exception of "his administration's bungled immigration proposals", it appears the answer would be yes.
The verbiage you used seems to be lifted directly from the liberal's style book.
You sound just like my sister, who is a diehard KOS poster.
“You all will recall President George W Bush’s saying shortly after the attacks of 9/11/2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.””
Comparing that statement to spending a trillion dollars in Iraq as equal binary choices is a false assumption.
We don’t have to spend a trillion dollars in Iraq. We could spend it in Afganistan or New York as alternative options.
Most of that money is spent in the US. It pays for trucks, armor, bullets, medical care, and salaries for the military.
Either you are a friend of America in this battle or you are against us. Remaining neutral means you want to business and take bribes from people like Saddam. Kinda like France, Germany and Russia did during the years prior to the current war.
“Does that mean anyone who opposes Bush’s domestic surveillance programs, his undeclared war against Iraq, his imprisonment of American and foreign terrorism suspects without charges, or his administration’s bungled immigration proposals is siding with the terrorists? “
Yes and delusional.... black helicopters bugging you? At least you can spell “T-I-N F-O-I-L”