All we keep hearing about from lurch is how he served his country well, and as a hero, and how that somehow qualifies him to better protect and defend our great nation. Now I have said on this board many times, that I respect JK service to our country as I do any and every one who served honorably. What I am talking about is the fact that he had a whopping 4months of service driving a boat around the rivers of Vietnam.
On the other hand GWB has for over three years now conducted a successful war on terrorism. Freeing 30 some million people in Afghanistan, and another 2 million in Iraq. Now, I will give you the fact that not all has been perfect, those of us who understand these things realize that war is not always a perfect science. However, what I am talking about is the fact that GWB has been working this problem for better then three years now and JK spent a few months zipping around on a boat getting shot at occasionally. How does this make JK better qualified in any way shape or form?
Oh well, for those of you GWB haters…begin flaming away. No intellectual responses anticipated. But for all others please let me know what you think about this.
Full Version: Lets compare War Time Service
By your logic, every incumbent president deserves to be re-elected because he's had four years' more experience in the job than the other guy.
QUOTE(BRH @ Aug 30 2004, 09:58 AM)
By your logic, every incumbent president deserves to be re-elected because he's had four years' more experience in the job than the other guy.
[right][snapback]11695[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11695[/snapback][/right]
Nice try, but you know that is not what he said.
He was not simply comparing GW's 4 years as president, he was citing the fact that GW has spent the last 3 years fighting a very effective war against terrorism. He has 3 years of experience leading the war on terrorism. Kerry has 4 months of fighting in a war that occurred 30+ years ago.
You can claim that Kerry has more military experience, but by doing so you ignore the experience GW has gained leading the country in war the last 3 years. Does GW have as much Vietnam experience? No. Does GW have more experience in dealing with the war at hand? Yes and that is more important to me. Kerry's Vietnam experience does nothing to prove that he will be an effective president in dealing with the current war on terrorism.
QUOTE(Rich in Ohio @ Aug 30 2004, 09:52 AM)
All we keep hearing about from lurch is how he served his country well, and as a hero, and how that somehow qualifies him to better protect and defend our great nation. Now I have said on this board many times, that I respect JK service to our country as I do any and every one who served honorably. What I am talking about is the fact that he had a whopping 4months of service driving a boat around the rivers of Vietnam.
On the other hand GWB has for over three years now conducted a successful war on terrorism. Freeing 30 some million people in Afghanistan, and another 2 million in Iraq. Now, I will give you the fact that not all has been perfect, those of us who understand these things realize that war is not always a perfect science. However, what I am talking about is the fact that GWB has been working this problem for better then three years now and JK spent a few months zipping around on a boat getting shot at occasionally. How does this make JK better qualified in any way shape or form?
Oh well, for those of you GWB haters…begin flaming away. No intellectual responses anticipated. But for all others please let me know what you think about this.
[right][snapback]11687[/snapback][/right]
On the other hand GWB has for over three years now conducted a successful war on terrorism. Freeing 30 some million people in Afghanistan, and another 2 million in Iraq. Now, I will give you the fact that not all has been perfect, those of us who understand these things realize that war is not always a perfect science. However, what I am talking about is the fact that GWB has been working this problem for better then three years now and JK spent a few months zipping around on a boat getting shot at occasionally. How does this make JK better qualified in any way shape or form?
Oh well, for those of you GWB haters…begin flaming away. No intellectual responses anticipated. But for all others please let me know what you think about this.
[right][snapback]11687[/snapback][/right]
I do not agree that the war on terrorism has been successful. We still have numerous terrorist attacks still happening, Osama Bin Laden is still out there, airport security has marginally improved, we are handing out terror alerts on aged information, and in Afghanistan, threats still abound. We cannot possibly WIN the war on terror until the Iraqi incursion reaches its conclusion. THEN we can focus on what is REALLY important to preserving the freedom and security of the United States.
John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had.
Beyond that, they aren't much different. If Bush is re-elected, we are in much more danger, IMO.
QUOTE(Arondale @ Aug 30 2004, 11:13 AM)
Does GW have more experience in dealing with the war at hand? Yes and that is more important to me. Kerry's Vietnam experience does nothing to prove that he will be an effective president in dealing with the current war on terrorism.
[right][snapback]11717[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11717[/snapback][/right]
You know, Herbert Hoover had a lot more experience in dealing with the national economy at hand in 1932 than Franklin Roosevelt did. Good thing the electorate didn't base its decision on that factor.
QUOTE(BRH @ Aug 30 2004, 10:17 AM)
You know, Herbert Hoover had a lot more experience in dealing with the national economy at hand in 1932 than Franklin Roosevelt did. Good thing the electorate didn't base its decision on that factor.
[right][snapback]11721[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11721[/snapback][/right]
That IS true! Hoover also had a lot of experience with economic planning for the recovery effort after World War I.
Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression.
His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration.
QUOTE
John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had.
One of the biggest fallacies and pie in the sky ideas is that if Kerry is elected, the rest of the world, especially France, Germany and Russia, will suddenly be our best friends.
QUOTE(RkFast @ Aug 30 2004, 10:25 AM)
One of the biggest fallacies and pie in the sky ideas is that if Kerry is elected, the rest of the world, especially France, Germany and Russia, will suddenly be our best friends.
[right][snapback]11728[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11728[/snapback][/right]
You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia!
YOU WOULD BE wrong.
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
QUOTE
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
Ah, right...I forgot...up until Jan 2000, the Middle East just LOVED the United States.
Silly me.
QUOTE(RkFast @ Aug 30 2004, 10:51 AM)
Ah, right...I forgot...up until Jan 2000, the Middle East just LOVED the United States.
Silly me.
[right][snapback]11762[/snapback][/right]
Silly me.
[right][snapback]11762[/snapback][/right]
Our hopeless policy towards Israel prevents us from having a much better standing in the Arab community. Since January 2000, those communities have been angered by the policy I stated above. Relations have soured, and even the more pro-Western countries in the region are fast becoming alienated. Electing Kerry would vastly improve our relations, UNLESS Kerry shows any sort of a tendency toward more support for Israel... then we are screwed regardless.
Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves.
War on terrorism?
What a joke.
We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible.
I wish this administration had its priorities in order.
What a joke.
We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible.
I wish this administration had its priorities in order.
QUOTE(Peter @ Aug 30 2004, 11:02 AM)
War on terrorism?
What a joke.
We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible.
I wish this administration had its priorities in order.
[right][snapback]11791[/snapback][/right]
What a joke.
We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible.
I wish this administration had its priorities in order.
[right][snapback]11791[/snapback][/right]
Look at the facts. Have we had another terrorist attack on our country? You and I can't say for sure how many attacks have been prevented, but the fact that there has been zero since 9/11 indicates a continued success on the war on terror. Obviously it would be nice to get OBL, but the facts show that his network has been severely damaged and that dozens of his top aides have been captured.
Why is that a joke to you?
QUOTE(Thurman's Helmet @ Aug 30 2004, 11:02 AM)
Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves.
[right][snapback]11790[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11790[/snapback][/right]
Nope, I'm not kidding myself.. they wouldn't have a reason to fight if Israel has their stuff together, but they don't.
I never said he was going to change, I said IF he changes it...
They hate US because of our ties with Israel. If we forced them to get their act together, it would be a major success. Israel gives us NO benefits that I can see. We gat a hell of a lot more from Turkey than we ever did or do with Israel... I can't think of ANY bases we have there.
QUOTE(Arondale @ Aug 30 2004, 12:14 PM)
Why is that a joke to you?
[right][snapback]11817[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11817[/snapback][/right]
I think a great many people fail to understand that the "War on Terrorism" is far more encompassing than just capturing bin Laden. The common view seems to be that the war must only involve direct, linear connections to 9/11...meaning Iraq (and North Korea and Iran, when we get around to it) are irrelevent sideshows. The actuality, which is grieviously misunderstood, is that 9/11 both represents and precipitated a fundamental policy shift in how the US deals with terrorism, and the policy shift itself cast Iraq and Saddam Hussein in a new light regardless of any involvement (or - far more likely - lack thereof) with al Qaeda and 9/11.
QUOTE(Thurman's Helmet @ Aug 30 2004, 11:02 AM)
Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves.
[right][snapback]11790[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11790[/snapback][/right]
Nope, I'm not kidding myself.. they wouldn't have a reason to fight if Israel has their stuff together, but they don't.
I never said he was going to change, I said IF he changes it...
They hate US because of our ties with Israel. If we forced them to get their act together, it would be a major success. Israel gives us NO benefits that I can see. We gat a hell of a lot more from Turkey than we ever did or do with Israel... I can't think of ANY bases we have there.
QUOTE(RabidBillsFanVT @ Aug 30 2004, 10:31 AM)
You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia!
YOU WOULD BE wrong.
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
[right][snapback]11740[/snapback][/right]
YOU WOULD BE wrong.
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
[right][snapback]11740[/snapback][/right]
My understanding is that every country that supported us in Gulf War I, has supported us in this one, with the exception of France. Germany wasn't there the first time. Neither was Russia. Turkey has cooperated in much the same way as before. So has Seria. But ya gotta really wonder about Syria. But the constant notion that the U.S. went it alone is being spoken by those who just don't know any better, or who are not being honest. And what were some of the results of our long standing work for peace in the Middle East? The assasination of the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat by comes to mind. 9-11 was planned DURING the Clinton Administration. Terrorism has been increasing, not decreasing. And Bush isn't causing it, any more than he caused hurricane Charlie. The Middle East needs reform. Nothing we're doing in the past was getting done.
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 11:40 AM)
I think a great many people fail to understand that the "War on Terrorism" is far more encompassing than just capturing bin Laden. The common view seems to be that the war must only involve direct, linear connections to 9/11...meaning Iraq (and North Korea and Iran, when we get around to it) are irrelevent sideshows. The actuality, which is grieviously misunderstood, is that 9/11 both represents and precipitated a fundamental policy shift in how the US deals with terrorism, and the policy shift itself cast Iraq and Saddam Hussein in a new light regardless of any involvement (or - far more likely - lack thereof) with al Qaeda and 9/11.
[right][snapback]11846[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11846[/snapback][/right]
If you read the papers, books, etc., that have come out on the subject (as I know you have), you realize that Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle et al had a hard on for Iraq long before September 11th.
The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration wanted to do long before 9/11.
QUOTE(Peter @ Aug 30 2004, 01:49 PM)
If you read the papers, books, etc., that have come out on the subject (as I know you have), you realize that Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle et al had a hard on for Iraq long before September 11th.
The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration want to do long before 9/11.
[right][snapback]11939[/snapback][/right]
The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration want to do long before 9/11.
[right][snapback]11939[/snapback][/right]
Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues.
QUOTE(RabidBillsFanVT @ Aug 30 2004, 10:24 AM)
That IS true! Hoover also had a lot of experience with economic planning for the recovery effort after World War I.
Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression.
His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration.
[right][snapback]11726[/snapback][/right]
Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression.
His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration.
[right][snapback]11726[/snapback][/right]
What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits?
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
QUOTE(ExiledInIllinois @ Aug 30 2004, 02:01 PM)
What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits?
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
[right][snapback]11956[/snapback][/right]
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
[right][snapback]11956[/snapback][/right]
It was July 1932. Hoover ordered the eviction of the protesting veterans from the Mall by federal troops led by none other than Douglas MacArthur. link
QUOTE(ExiledInIllinois @ Aug 30 2004, 02:01 PM)
What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits?
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
[right][snapback]11956[/snapback][/right]
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
[right][snapback]11956[/snapback][/right]
Hoover, just before his term was up (July of '32.)
And Douggie MacArthur should have had his ass canned for that fiasco.
QUOTE(BRH @ Aug 30 2004, 12:53 PM)
Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues.
[right][snapback]11943[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11943[/snapback][/right]
I am a Republican who is extremely disappointed with the way that this administration squandered all the goodwill that existed throughout the world after 9/11 and that insisted on taking our eye off the ball to fight an optional war to accomplish goals of some people that were unrelated to 9/11.
QUOTE(BRH @ Aug 30 2004, 12:53 PM)
Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues.
[right][snapback]11943[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]11943[/snapback][/right]
Funny, I've posted an nauseum on this very subject (Iraq, terror, middle east, etc-) and have never once had anyone want to engage on the subject. Where were you guys then?
Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem.
The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs.
If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold.
As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach.
In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't.
I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think.
Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages.
QUOTE(Peter @ Aug 30 2004, 01:49 PM)
It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, [right][snapback]11939[/snapback][/right]
And THAT has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? Christ...
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 02:08 PM)
And THAT has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? Christ...
[right][snapback]12030[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12030[/snapback][/right]
Not really. At least not against us. And certainly not compared to OBL.
Iraq never was the threat that this administration made it out to be and according to Powell (before September 11th) Iraq was powerless and all boxed in at a cost of less than $3 billion per year. Compare that to the cost today.
Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- not the Baath Party. I was all for the war in Afghanistan.
Instead of using 9/11 to sell this optional war, the administration should have been up front with the American people about the reasons for the war and gone about in a way that did not destroy the goodwill that we had around the world.
I know that there are a lot of unilateralists on this board. Yet, if we really are going to be successful in a war on world wide terrorism, we need as many of our allies around the world as possible.
QUOTE(Peter @ Aug 30 2004, 01:44 PM)
I am a Republican who is extremely disappointed with the way that this administration squandered all the goodwill that existed throughout the world after 9/11 and that insisted on taking our eye off the ball to fight an optional war to accomplish goals of some people that were unrelated to 9/11.
[right][snapback]12005[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12005[/snapback][/right]
You know, I thought that way for a while too, but I don't really buy the "squandered goodwill" line anymore. Goodwill eventually gets amortized off the books no matter what. Fact is, the shock of 9-11 wore off. I walk by Ground Zero every day and it is still very palpable at that spot, but nothing compared to the first year after the attack. Outside of NYC and DC, I think much of the country has put it further back in memory, and outside of the US further still.
I don't believe that any sympathy from our adversaries around the globe was going to last more than a few weeks or month no matter who was President or what he did. Ditto for our pseudo-allies in continental Europe. Time goes by, other tragedies happen, people forget, other people/countries have their own agendas to get back to.
BTW, this is not to say that Bush has done everything right since 9-11....far from it.
QUOTE
Instead of using 9/11 to sell this optional war, th administration should have been up front with the American people and gone about in a way that did not destroy the goodwill that we had around the world.
The irony of the statement I'm about to make is that I suspect it will not be the popular thing to say, but...who the fug cares anymore what goodwill there is in this world? To my mind, the goodwill and asssucking to which we have had to subject ourselves is, to some extent, the reason we got hit on 9/11. It's the reason Saddam had all the time in the world to bury all the bodies he gassed, raped, and murdered.
As a country we take a politically correct stance, and we end up with planes flying into our buildings.
Again, not a popular stance, but the rest of the world needs the US more than the US needs the rest of the world. When the crap hits the fan somewhere else, who is there to fix it? We are. When the crap hit our fan, who was there to fix it? We were.
To suggest that one of our country's problems is that we are not popular is just wrong. I personally don't care if we're popular, and if the rest of the world wants to turn their back on us, then our country's goal should be one of self-sufficiency so a time will come when we turn our back on the rest of the world and tell them to figure out their problems on their own.
It won't happen. I know that. But once again the world would be a different place if I were king of the world.
QUOTE(Peter @ Aug 30 2004, 03:19 PM)
Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- not the Baath Party. I was all for the war in Afghanistan.
[right][snapback]12051[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12051[/snapback][/right]
Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 02:28 PM)
Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
[right][snapback]12070[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12070[/snapback][/right]
I trying to reference back to all your quotes and I can't find that one
QUOTE(RabidBillsFanVT @ Aug 30 2004, 11:17 AM)
I do not agree that the war on terrorism has been successful. We still have numerous terrorist attacks still happening, Osama Bin Laden is still out there, airport security has marginally improved, we are handing out terror alerts on aged information, and in Afghanistan, threats still abound. We cannot possibly WIN the war on terror until the Iraqi incursion reaches its conclusion. THEN we can focus on what is REALLY important to preserving the freedom and security of the United States.
John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had.
Beyond that, they aren't much different. If Bush is re-elected, we are in much more danger, IMO.
[right][snapback]11720[/snapback][/right]
John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had.
Beyond that, they aren't much different. If Bush is re-elected, we are in much more danger, IMO.
[right][snapback]11720[/snapback][/right]
OK time to go back to school. Here are some facts about the current war on terror:
1) There has been no attacks on US soil since 9-11
2) OBL is still out there(maybe) but he is under a rock. Better there then making attack plans in Kabul.
3) Airport security has improved greatly. Evidence: No hi-jackings in the USA since 9-11. Until we have another one your arguement is nothing more then opinion.
4) Terror reports contain old, new, and secert informtion. By the way, how many of the actual reports have you read? Hmm just curious.
5) Umm excuse me, the war on terroria=sm will never be won regardless of what happens or does not happen in Iraq. There will always be wacky Islamic nuts who want us dead, and then when we are dead, they will want to kill us again in order to please ala. These are insane people who are trying to liv in our world..unfortunately we will never run out of targets.
6) The USA seems to be pretty safe and secure right now. Reference item #1
7) On what record do you base your belief that JK will be any better abe to get countries who hate the USA (not just GWB) then the current or any other president? You are engaging in wishful thinking at best. The only way we make the countries who are not with us happy...is to appease them. I say we pass on that strategy please.
Pay attention closely...there will be a quiz later.
QUOTE(billfan63 @ Aug 30 2004, 03:42 PM)
I trying to reference back to all your quotes and I can't find that one
[right][snapback]12101[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12101[/snapback][/right]
Unsurprising. We pretty well established your lack of reading comprehension yesterday.
QUOTE(RabidBillsFanVT @ Aug 30 2004, 11:31 AM)
You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia!
YOU WOULD BE wrong.
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
[right][snapback]11740[/snapback][/right]
YOU WOULD BE wrong.
I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be.
[right][snapback]11740[/snapback][/right]
he he he , you have rally made my day. I have not even needed to turn on my XM comedy channel today...just read a few of your posts.
Come on, you said "Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace" are you talking about in the middle east? Please...you must be joking.
There will never be peace in the middle east until every jew on earth is dead, and everyone who talks to them, supports them, and even thinks that they have a right to walk the earth will meet the same fate that the wacked out islamic fundamentalists has in store for the jews.
Do you understand this simple and basic point. These people are insane, and they are not based in anything that you, me or any other normal air breathing human being would consider normal.
One more time .....All jews dead= peace in the middle east. This is the only way that the fundamentalists will ever stop the terrorism that they have exported to every corner of the globe.
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 02:45 PM)
Unsurprising. We pretty well established your lack of reading comprehension yesterday.
[right][snapback]12107[/snapback][/right]
and your intelligence
[right][snapback]12107[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(billfan63 @ Aug 30 2004, 03:49 PM)
and your intelligence
[right][snapback]12119[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12119[/snapback][/right]
Ooooooh. The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. I remember when I was six, and found that uproariously creative, too...
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 02:28 PM)
Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
[right][snapback]12070[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12070[/snapback][/right]
You have not been reading my posts.
My point is that this administration should not have used 9/11 and WMD to sell an optional war.
As for whether the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, we can debate that.
As I said, it had more to do with accomplishing pre-9/11 goals. These goals were legitimate (but not prompted by any imminent threat). Indeed, the goals were similar to the reasons for the first Gulf war (which I supported), but Iraq had not invaded another country this time.
These goals were largely unstated by the administration. The administration should have sold the war on its own merits and let the American people decide whether the timing and manner of this war was appropriate - rather than engage in false advertising.
These goals did not require the urgency that this administration placed on them. There was no imminent threat. Moreover, this war did not require that we alienate nearly every ally we have in the world. Indeed, I dare say that all but one other country in the world (if you go by the views of the population) was against this war.
That is the difference between a war of necessity and one of choice. We have every right to eliminate an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. That is why the war in Afghanistan was and is correct and had universal support throughout the country and world.
The war in Iraq was another story. This administration allowed people to believe that we (and the guys that died) were avenging 9/11. Instead, 9/11 was used as a pretext to accomplish a goal that had nothing to do with the 3,000 Americans that died on 9/11.
It is pretty simple stuff.
If you have any questions about whether the architects of this war wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, read the attached and look at who some of the authors were.
"A Clean Break"
the topic: "compare war time service"
but your trying to compare what bush is doing now, to what Kerry did 30 years ago. diffrent times, and diffrent wars.
to say ALL kerry did was drive a little boat in vietnam is just crazy.
then to say.."but bush was in the national gaurd they both served their country".
yes they both served their country, and the national gaurd is important, but i think being in a forien nation and getting shot at, and earning 3 purple hearts and a silver star, while Bush takes a few months RR, kinda tip the scales a little.
ok, that said...
i DO like how we invaded iraq, we thaught they had nukes (or going to get them), and i dont think you want to wait untill the missles are in the air to mobalize your forces. he acted on intel he had. we should be looking in to how we got that intel and where it came from, not the actions as a result of it.
our military is over extended and more troops are needed in afganistan and Iraq. if those "piece first" countries wont send troops, than what good are they as allies??? our policies over there are not strict enouph for the job. any man standing on a US truck with a gun cheering cus he just killed an american should be shot on site. i dont see why we just take pictures and pull back??? we are trying to be "the nice little country who is there to help" that we wont do what is needed. drill some wells, build some schools, but negotiating with rebels is unacceptable, even if you say "the iraqi police made the negotiations", we were the ones there, we just didnt want to see a bunch of dead people on CNN.
I DO NOT think that by electing Kerry, france and all those "piece first countries" (which i really really HATE!!!!) will not just jump up and say there our friends. i say to hell with them anyways.
what was i talking about agian....
but your trying to compare what bush is doing now, to what Kerry did 30 years ago. diffrent times, and diffrent wars.
to say ALL kerry did was drive a little boat in vietnam is just crazy.
then to say.."but bush was in the national gaurd they both served their country".
yes they both served their country, and the national gaurd is important, but i think being in a forien nation and getting shot at, and earning 3 purple hearts and a silver star, while Bush takes a few months RR, kinda tip the scales a little.
ok, that said...
i DO like how we invaded iraq, we thaught they had nukes (or going to get them), and i dont think you want to wait untill the missles are in the air to mobalize your forces. he acted on intel he had. we should be looking in to how we got that intel and where it came from, not the actions as a result of it.
our military is over extended and more troops are needed in afganistan and Iraq. if those "piece first" countries wont send troops, than what good are they as allies??? our policies over there are not strict enouph for the job. any man standing on a US truck with a gun cheering cus he just killed an american should be shot on site. i dont see why we just take pictures and pull back??? we are trying to be "the nice little country who is there to help" that we wont do what is needed. drill some wells, build some schools, but negotiating with rebels is unacceptable, even if you say "the iraqi police made the negotiations", we were the ones there, we just didnt want to see a bunch of dead people on CNN.
I DO NOT think that by electing Kerry, france and all those "piece first countries" (which i really really HATE!!!!) will not just jump up and say there our friends. i say to hell with them anyways.
what was i talking about agian....
It's more a question of judgement, leadership and integrity. While frat-boy Bush was snorting coke and dodging the draft, Kerry was volunteering for Nam. 30 years later, Bush uses my patriotism and fear against me. He lies to me about WMDs and a link between Osama and Iraq so he can start an unwanted war and finish one for Daddy. In the mean time, he's slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqies and almost 1000 American men and women. Those brave soldiers lost their lives for nothing. Osama is still out there. And we are now less safe. That makes me sick.
Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular.
Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house.
Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular.
Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house.
QUOTE(Goo @ Aug 30 2004, 04:20 PM)
It's more a question of judgement, leadership and integrity. While frat-boy Bush was snorting coke and dodging the draft, Kerry was volunteering for Nam. 30 years later, Bush uses my patriotism and fear against me. He lies to me about WMDs and a link between Osama and Iraq so he can start an unwanted war and finish one for Daddy. In the mean time, he's slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqies and almost 1000 American men and women. Those brave soldiers lost their lives for nothing. Osama is still out there. And we are now less safe. That makes me sick.
Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular.
Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house.
[right][snapback]12346[/snapback][/right]
Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular.
Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house.
[right][snapback]12346[/snapback][/right]
Someday you guys are going to realize that Bush didn't lie to start the war. Unless you think Kerry lied too given that he agreed to the war based on the same information our President had.
I keep seeing the people in NYC with signs that say "Bush Lied" and think to myself; there may just come a day when people can objectively think for themselves without taking for granted the first thing they hear from someone less intelligent than them.
And people wonder why we call them Pollys.
QUOTE(Arondale @ Aug 30 2004, 11:14 AM)
Look at the facts. Have we had another terrorist attack on our country? You and I can't say for sure how many attacks have been prevented, but the fact that there has been zero since 9/11 indicates a continued success on the war on terror. Obviously it would be nice to get OBL, but the facts show that his network has been severely damaged and that dozens of his top aides have been captured.
Why is that a joke to you?
[right][snapback]11817[/snapback][/right]
Why is that a joke to you?
[right][snapback]11817[/snapback][/right]
By this logic Clinton had a better record than Bush. Fewer casualties. It's not about where we are, it's about where were going.
Just because the dam hasn't burst doesn't mean the town should rely on the kid indefinately plugging holes with his fingers. It's much more difficult to stop the flow of water in the reservior but everyone will be better off in the long run.
Many people believe that Bush's flawed policies ("strategy" is too strong a word) will reach it's tipping point very soon.
QUOTE(_BiB_ @ Aug 30 2004, 02:01 PM)
Funny, I've posted an nauseum on this very subject (Iraq, terror, middle east, etc-) and have never once had anyone want to engage on the subject. Where were you guys then?
Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem.
The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs.
If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold.
As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach.
In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't.
I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think.
Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages.
[right][snapback]12024[/snapback][/right]
Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem.
The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs.
If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold.
As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach.
In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't.
I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think.
Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages.
[right][snapback]12024[/snapback][/right]
I agreed with just about everything you said untill the second to last paragraph, then you lost me. First, Kerry has said he will pull some forces out but they would be substituted with more international forces with idea of creating a true national strategy in the region. He never said we'd have anything close to an immediate withdrawal, nothing close. Kerry has said over and over that a complete withdrawal will take years and years.
Second, but more important: you haven't explained how the current policy is working and how it will achieve many of the things outlined in the first few paragraphs. It seems quite inconceivable to many people, including ME experts, who cannot see how the current strategy will weaken fundamentalism in the region. Just the opposite has continued to happen since the Iraq invasion.
Moreover, there appears to be NO diplomacy at all. What is the plan? No one appears to be working together, no vision, no idea of what to do next. Explain how Bush's policies are working and what he plans to do next.
QUOTE(LABillzFan @ Aug 30 2004, 06:25 PM)
Someday you guys are going to realize that Bush didn't lie to start the war. Unless you think Kerry lied too given that he agreed to the war based on the same information our President had.
I keep seeing the people in NYC with signs that say "Bush Lied" and think to myself; there may just come a day when people can objectively think for themselves without taking for granted the first thing they hear from someone less intelligent than them.
And people wonder why we call them Pollys.
[right][snapback]12350[/snapback][/right]
I keep seeing the people in NYC with signs that say "Bush Lied" and think to myself; there may just come a day when people can objectively think for themselves without taking for granted the first thing they hear from someone less intelligent than them.
And people wonder why we call them Pollys.
[right][snapback]12350[/snapback][/right]
Someday you'll have to come up with another response to people who disagree with you rather than parroting the same old: "they are all stupid pollys. "
The irony is that your posta read like RNC talking points or the Rush Report for his dittoheads.
Rcow...Did not John Kerry vote for the war in Iraq? If he did (he did) Wasn't it the same information given to the President (it was). Not calling you anything...except...not being fair.
QUOTE(DC Tom @ Aug 30 2004, 02:58 PM)
Ooooooh. The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. I remember when I was six, and found that uproariously creative, too...
[right][snapback]12133[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12133[/snapback][/right]
Sounds like DC has his panty's in a wad,
that dorkboy is the wad defense,
liberal,,conservative what is he, oh we wonder
QUOTE(billfan63 @ Aug 30 2004, 08:40 PM)
Sounds like DC has his panty's in a wad,
that dorkboy is the wad defense,
liberal,,conservative what is he, oh we wonder
[right][snapback]12590[/snapback][/right]
that dorkboy is the wad defense,
liberal,,conservative what is he, oh we wonder
[right][snapback]12590[/snapback][/right]
At least we don't have to wonder about you...
QUOTE(Alaska Darin @ Aug 30 2004, 11:51 PM)
At least we don't have to wonder about you...
[right][snapback]12604[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12604[/snapback][/right]
At least I don't play the I hate them both game.
QUOTE(billfan63 @ Aug 30 2004, 08:57 PM)
At least I don't play the I hate them both game.
[right][snapback]12611[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12611[/snapback][/right]
Me neither. I hate everybody...
QUOTE(Alaska Darin @ Aug 31 2004, 12:01 AM)
Me neither. I hate everybody...
[right][snapback]12615[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12615[/snapback][/right]
except DC, you have his back
QUOTE(billfan63 @ Aug 30 2004, 09:03 PM)
except DC, you have his back
[right][snapback]12618[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]12618[/snapback][/right]
Dexter? What can I say? I have a soft spot for 6'5", 270 lb pasty white dudes with bulbous heads and sweet girlfriends.
QUOTE(Rich in Ohio @ Aug 30 2004, 02:47 PM)
[right][snapback]12114[/snapback][/right]
*he he he , you have rally made my day. I have not even needed to turn on my XM comedy channel today...just read a few of your posts.
Why the insult?
*Come on, you said "Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace" are you talking about in the middle east? Please...you must be joking.
No, I'm not joking. It's not about just the Middle East, it was about our whole reputation. We have used our influence and pressures MANY times to foster peace throughout the world, and we have been respected for it, outside of the normal circles, i.e. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... NOW our reputation has suffered greatly by going through with the Iraqi war, and it's not about cowering to the opinion of France, Germany, etc... it is about having the intelligence to realize what you are getting into, and building REAL understanding. You can't build it through concocting WMD stories and bullying through to war. That makes us look imperialist, something that WE CANNOT AFFORD to look like. I AM NOT saying we are; it just LOOKS that way.
*There will never be peace in the middle east until every jew on earth is dead, and everyone who talks to them, supports them, and even thinks that they have a right to walk the earth will meet the same fate that the wacked out islamic fundamentalists has in store for the jews.
You are mistaken. Britain and the UN caused the whole problem when they plopped down a country in the middle of the Arab world in 1948. Since then, people have fought to regain what was once their land... this battle has been going on for centuries. I think you are under the misconception that radicals are just Arabs... well, there are MANY fundamental Zionists who would rather go down dying than give up one bit of land. They can't seem to get it through their heads that they will always be under attack if they don't find a compromise. As long as we aid them in that stubbornness, they will always be attacked and their army will always attack Palestinians. It's not a JEWISH problem; it's a land and human rights problem... Israel doesn't respect their land OR their human rights, and Palestinians don't respect the use of non-violence to achieve its ends.
*Do you understand this simple and basic point. These people are insane, and they are not based in anything that you, me or any other normal air breathing human being would consider normal.
We called Native Americans 'savages' and 'cutthroats' and 'wicked', but were they REALLY? They were being wronged, and they fought back. It's a natual human condition.
*One more time .....All jews dead= peace in the middle east. This is the only way that the fundamentalists will ever stop the terrorism that they have exported to every corner of the globe.
I disagree. There hasn't been ONE war between Egypt and Israel since the peace brokered between Sadat and Begin. It CAN be done, but until Israel changes its tune and does what is right, it will continue this way.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.