are you suggesting W is responible for the actions of zarqawi's group? under that reasoning, who was responible for the actions of those who slammed airplanes into the WTC?
close, but no cigar, since the two choices are not mutually exclusive, the second merely representing an ostrich's eye view of the world. interesting too, that a poll in 1939, two years before pearl harbor, envisioned millions dead in the pacific. sure, the japanese had been raping nanking for a few years, but that's unusually prescient, n'est ce pas?
Well, let's see, if there's no invasion of Iraq, then there's no insurgency in Iraq to kidnap, murder, maim and torture. Is Bush solely culpable in a criminal law sense? No, of course not. Does he bear a degree of responsibility for creating a situation in which that kind of thing could happen that he was forewarned against by advisors and critics alike from within and without, who were shouted down by the "cakewalk" crew? Absolutely he does, absolutely. It's like this; I warn you not to go to a bad part of town with high crime after dark. You go to a bad part of town with high crime after dark. You get mugged. Are you culpable for getting mugged in a criminal sense? Are you guilty of assault, larceny, etc? no. Do you bear some degree of responsibity for putting yourself in a situation where it could happen despite being warned otherwise? yes. Who's responsible for Sept 11? Lots of people: the hijackers, their supporters, the Kingdom, Pakistan, the CIA, the FBI, CLinton, Bush I, Reagan, Bush II, you, me etc....
Of course I'm not. I am suggesting, and have suggested, that Bush's actions have made us more hated in the world though. I am suggesting that terror is up under Bush -- as evidenced by the report that the White House released that said terrorism was down before it said it was up. I am suggesting that threatening suicide bombers with violence is a pretty stupid way to win hearts and minds. I am suggesting that America has never received as much empathy worldwide as we did in 2001 and that we have never been more distrusted, feared and maligned as we are right now. If you're against the Kerry scenario you posted, you should vote for him.
i would, if i thought kerry had a serious plan for dealing w/ the threat posed by islamo-fascism (and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"), one that couldn't be boiled down to suck to mes amis anan et chirac. what did the sympathy from 2001 get us? where is NATO in afghanistan? france has 700 soldiers hunkered down in kabul, but 4,000 in cote d'ivoire. what does that say about their priorities, about their seriousness as allies in the WOT? and, pray tell, how would you respond to suicide bombers? turn the other tower?
Yes, it does. As made ( I thought) obvious re: the medium, credit, and means of responce, I was being tongue in cheek ( which is what you missed, at least part of what you missed at the least). But the general principal, ie that you are taking what makes many of us oppose Bush, at least in part, and crediting it to Kerry as a means of undermining that position is obvious. As such, my poll is exactly the same.
basso: Since you asked people to vote in a push poll with no basis in fact to 'test the strength of their convictions,' why don't you vote in this one: Democracy taking root in Afghanistan, iRaq stable, new government democraticly elected, US troops on their way home, Kerry inagurated. Taliban resurgent, iRaq in chaos, a beheading a week, no exit in sight, Bush re-inaugurated. Difference between yours and mine, of course, is that the Bush scenario perfectly echoes the situation as it exists right now under his leadership. Just how strong is your Bush love? Will you go on record saying you'd prefer the situation to continue as is versus improving under Kerry?
i'd gladly accept the first scenario, however, it should be noted that history would credit W w/ bringing democracy to two regions of the world where it had never been, and with liberating 25 million people. i don't think either scenario, leaving aside who will be president for the moment, represent what we will find next year, but i do believe we will be getting closer to the former.
God I want to slap you sometimes. Is there any chance at all of having a sincere, honest discussion with you? Ever? I don't know anyone here who has ever defended Al Qaeda or Saddam in any fashion whatsoever. Stop suggesting we are. It's incredibly petty and incredibly dishonest. And it's offensive. People aren't "outraged" by your poll. They're just sick of you being a jerk.
Did it ever occur to you that further European commitments in Afghanistan may have been influenced negatively by the fact that they are treated like crap by us, and the fact that we haven't really asked all that emphatically, and continue to treat it like an afterthought? Do you know what Spain pledged after withdrawing from Iraq? To redouble their efforts in Afghanistan. BTW, didn't you mockingly call for French intervention in the Ivory Coast in an attempt to expose them as hypocrites in your freedom fries days? Which way is the wind blowing today? I also note that Bush has now fully adopted Kerry's approach and is "kowtowing", as you guys like to put it, to both the UN and NATO. I applaud him for doing it, particularly NATO, though I doubt he can pull it off given the damage he has done. Too little, too late.
Hate to post a question which is not very relevant and a stupid one to boot -- but it's probably better than starting a thread for the sake of the stupid question. So here's the stupid question: why do some posters, like basso, write Iraq as iRaq? It seems a lot like RMTex's pResident, except the meaning in that example is obvious while the iRaq thing is completely opaque to me. I really don't get it at all. Is it some kind of witticism? Will someone take a second away from their sniping to help a brother out?
that comment wasn't directed at you, but at some others, i don't remember who, who derailed a thread the other day with an extensive semantic discussion about whether al queda, or saddam's iRaq, could rightly be called fascist. and yes, many here have implicitly defended saddam, as does MM in his new film (no i haven't seen it) by depicting it as a place where little girls could fly kites, but conveniently leaving out the part about his murder of hundreds of thousands of people. have i misrepresented the film? it's a sin of omission. and if challenging your convictions makes me a jerk, so be it. the point of the poll was to point out the absurdity of much of the criticism of bush, and to guage whether it's just rhetoric or what you really believe (you in the plural sense of "bush-haters").
