This is why it's dangerous to have the "religious right" of this country fighting the "religious right" of the ME. It wont end because neither side will budge. Both of *these* sides are blind with anger and revenge. Do you see how judgment can be impaired? Hiding behind "God," the "flag" and "patriotism" will do little to change this result.
Alright, then we agree on that. Tell me, in Kerry's policies on the war, how he is going to dictate this differently? I've heard nothing of substance other than he would do it differently. That's my largest problem: I'm not hearing anything of substance. Say what you will about Iraq. Saddam was a very very bad man (see South Park) He needed to go. You agree with that, right? Iraq, Kuwait, and Isreal are in the middle of the middle east. Are there going to be insubordinates to a change? Of course! Japan had just been nuked and Germany knew they were next. Of course there was less opposition. Should we Nuke afghanastan right now to show we mean business? I didn't think so. These days, it has to be handled the old fashioned, albeit much more coordinated site, way. Could we blow up cities in the middle east until they conformed? Absolutely! We are trying to liberate the middle east in the most humane way now. Unfortunately, it will take longer this way. My opposition to you is, if the conservatives were so war hungry, we would've bombed these bastards into submission a long time ago. I hate to say this about myself, but I wouldn't have minded at the time. GWB tried to do this warfare the way of the least innocent lives lost, the better; and now he's getting railroaded for it. If I'd been Pres. when the WTC got taken out (I worked there at MSDW) I'd have nuked the 500 mile radius of where OBM was, and America would've cheered and praised me. Diplomacy can be a b****, huh?
The next country that uses nukes, regardless of who it is, will not be "cheered and praised." You are sounding like LBJ. "Just bomb those bastards harder..." Sorry man. It's not that easy. You'll be waiting a long long time for that proverbial "We give."
It's too bad idiots like Moore and his cult followers don't spend more time protesting terrorism. What would happen if the terrorists saw a mass of people in the US with signs denouncing terrorism and terrorists?
I hope you stay in touch when you move to France or Canada. They do have the internet there don't they?
A truly LEGENDARY speech by George W Bush tonight. Wow, what a gem! 4-5% bounce based on that alone, no doubt.
No, because when he voted FOR it, it was a bill where the money to pay for it was designated where the bill he voted against simply raised the debt and didn't pay for the appropriation.
Then you aren't listening. Kerry wants to fund the intelligence services to the point that they can deliver actionable intelligence about terrorists and then, take the f***ers out with covert special operations forces. Seems like the way to do it to me, you know, as opposed to invading a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda, 9/11, or OBL.
So Andy to be clear if we take out a suspected terrorist in a covert (sniper type) of operation you are ok with that? I know I am for it which makes it odd that you support it as well. You can fund intelligence all you want but it won't help for a few years. There is a lot of value in doing that but you're going to have a lot of bad PR (like being associated with other terrorists) and it's going to take a lot of time and money to earn the trust of other crooks who will help you. Basically to get credible ops intelligence you're going to be associated with alot of people who as bad (or nearly as bad) as the group you're going after. So I think it is reasonable but there are a lot of risks.
I think Most Americans are for taking out terrorists with covert military special force actions. Why will it take a couple of years to get the intel? Our current Intel is associated with bad people. There are different ways to get intel. Payoffs, undercover agents, etc. Also when you have more cooperation by other nations we will be able to coordinate efforts in order to get the best possible intel, the most efficient way.
I would MUCH rather take them out with special ops forces than wage wars against countries that don't have anything to do with al Qaeda, 9/11, or OBL. Plus, I think it would be much more frightening to be (or consider becoming) a terrorist if you don't know when or where you are going to be attacked. With an army in the field, it is much easier for terrorists to track movements and set up ambushes than if the Green Berets (or SEALs, or Rangers) are waiting in the wings. Of course our spies will be associated with bad people, it has been that way forever. It may be a few years before we get the human intelligence assets in place, but at least Kerry wouldn't burn the cover of undercover operatives while they are still in the field (like this administration did with the Pakistani spy who was already IN AQ) or out CIA operatives in retaliation for political issues. The only way we are going to be able to effectively fight terrorism is by winning the hearts and minds of the people in the ME, much like we did with the Soviet Bloc. In the war of ideas, we have the best there is to offer (democracy, free markets, equal rights, free speech, etc.), but if we are seen as aggressors and occupiers, we will not win the war of ideas. We didn't invade any of the Soviet Bloc countries and yet, for many reasons (economics and freedom being the most important), the Soviet Union fell because their people saw a better way. The situation is much the same in the ME. The people are oppressed, they are not free, women are second class citizens, and free speech is muzzled. The only thing keeping their governments propped up is the value of their oil, value we could minimize by reducing or eliminating our dependence on their petroleum (as Kerry will also do with his support of alternative energy sources). We can win the war of ideas, but we will not if we continue to invade countries, particularly when we invade as we did in Iraq (bad "intelligence," no connection to 9/11 or AQ, no connection to OBL). We need to be a shining beacon of light but (partially) because of the failed policies of this president, we are seen as the Death Star by the citizens of the ME.
Because money alone won't get the job done. Look at the bounty we have on OBL. It hasn't helped find him. Anyone we work with will have to trust us. Sure you can get a guy on the street to say I think who you're lookign for is here but it's largely useless info (a rumor you're buying). You have to get inside the organization and money alone won't buy you in. You have to earn the trust of whoever is working for you. This person has to know what you're going to do with the info, has to make sure he's not being trapped, he wants to make sure he gets his safety afterwards. Too many things he has to be reassured of that money alone can't buy.
you must've missed tommy franks' speech last night, and particularly his post speech interview w/ Jim lehr and brooks and shields (always wanna say brooks and dunn...). he quietly killed kerry. mark shields repeatedly tried to drar him into the swift boat controversy, and franks, for the most part refused to take sides, but did say he honored the service of men on both sides of the arguement. he also said that medals were freely handed out in vietnam. ths wouldn't even be an issue had kerry not made his own medals such a prominent part of his campaign. then franks told about how he had a definite problem w/ kerry's actions when he came home. this is the crux of kerry's swift boat problem. franks said it was absolutely ok for kerry to have protested the war, but he crossed a line (when he slandered his fellow vets). and he said he didn't have confidence in kerry's willingness to fight the WOT the way it needs to be fought. all-in-all it was a pretty devestating indictment of the possibility of kerry as CIC.
Anyone have an audio clip of Bush speaking spanish? That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while!
Yeah, I love it when he does that. I remember in one thread when folks were talking about THK, and how smart she was and spoke Spanish, French, English, and some other languages, I believe somebody mentioned that Bush spoke Spanish. I didn't bother replying, that Bush doesn't speak Spanish. He may know a little bit of Spanish, but does not speak Spanish.
Too bad it was all bait and switch half truths. What's sad is that there are people who believe this crap without any question.
What is sad is that we can say the same thing about any politician, but you choose to blindly believe Forbes Kerry & his waffles over some meat that the President is offering...
No, what is sad is that you cannot (or choose not to) see that what the GOP is describing as "waffling" or "flip flopping" are perfect examples of how Kerry has the ability to make rational decisions based on evidence rather than simply "staying the course" because you don't believe that the opposition has anything of value to say. BTW, if you are truly pi$$ed about waffling, you need to take a good hard look at the biggest flip-flopper in this race: GWB.
I don't blindly follow any candidate. meat? MEAT? Is that what we're calling issues these days? And the pResident isn't offering anything but more deficits, more death and more fear! sigh No wonder America is in the state it's in.
