Exactly! Our governments policys hurt most countries not benefit them. We spread democracy, well actually we spread American Imperialism around the globe. After we broke our promises to leave the Middle East after the first Iraq war WE caused OBL to start his little jihad.
If the neo con could think and not just react maybe this country could get its s**t together!

Again I mention reading the book "Blowback".

"WE caused OBL to start his little jihad."

I completely understand what you are saying. BUT, if you believe that, then you are a bigger sucker the the "non-thinking neo-con" which you are so quick to malign.

Again, I completely understand what you are saying.

You need to know, though, that the logic which you are using, is the same logic used by rapists.

e.g. she looked so pretty and wouldn't stop teasing me with those sexy titties . . . she deserved what I gave her.

OBL raped this country.

I do believe this is an example of a conservative being pessimistic about human nature ;)

More seriously, neither Kerry nor Edwards would have invaded Iraq, which pretty much makes whether they considered him to be a threat or not irrelevant to this discussion. It is possible to consider someone a threat and not invade (Bush must believe this, because he hasn't invaded NK).

I mean come on guys - if it's not WMD, then its the "War on Terror". Do you honestly believe the best way to win the war on terror is to invade countries?

Osama Bin Ladin's extremism against the United States really took hold after the first Gulf War when the U.S. left troops in Saudi Arabia. (The Mecca/holiest place for Muslims). This is a fact. No amount of emotion, spinning BS, ("they hate us no matter what we do......), :rolleyes: , can change this fact. Am I rationalising terrorism? No. But it doesn't hurt to get a frikkin' clue, especially when we are in a "war" against an ideological movement, not a country or group of countries.

And BTW, if you choose to call it a "war against terrorism", we are losing BIGTIME. Islam is by far and away the fastest growing religion in the world, growing in dozens of countries and regions like a wildfire right now, and even though we claim that we are not at war w/ a religion, the extremists of Islam have far more credibilty w/ their rank and file than the U.S. does, (which has close to zero).

Bush and the Neocons play into the hands of Al Quaeda in a way that is beyond their wildest wet dreams, OBL thinks that he has died and gone to heaven. (If he in fact hasn't died and gone to hell, for real). I'm sure that he cannot believe the stupidity of Bush, invading M.E. countries, (even eliminating one of OBL's enemies in the process), and just generally doing more for recruitment than a thousand infidel beheadings.

Oh, and the record price of oil is not caused by "speculation" in the way that you describe; it is caused in part by actual disruptions in supply, (Iraq is the 2nd biggest supply on earth and the supply system is in shambles due to insurgents/sabotage), but mostly the run-up is caused by the fear of further disruption, which is a direct result of the botched Iraq invasion and predicted future instability.

All members of the oil supply industry will see record profits as a result, however, be they in Mexico, Venezuela, Texas, etc....

And all consumers worldwide will suffer, be they individuals, governments, charities, etc.....

Thanks a lot, assclowns!! SmileWavy

Someone was saying to me the other night, "If Clinton ever fuched anything up 1/10th as much as these A-holes, they would have hung him from a tree on Pennsylvania Ave.!!" :eek:

No, no, Cam! There are only two choices, invade/do nothing!

Geopolitics as frikkin' game show. :rolleyes:

oh-oh-oh. . .

Kerry/Edwards would have invaded Iraq . .. but "B E T T E R".


whaddi win?

That wasn't one of the choices, Island. At least not according to the dittosheep. It's invade/do nothing, that was the only two choices. :rolleyes:

New Flash:

Police officer shoots boy who points toy gun at him

Liberal response--It was a toy gun

Conservative response--The boy shouldn't have pointed what looked like a gun at the officer.

Honestly,

Kerry, Edwards, The U.N., Great Britan, Germany, France, and just about everyone else though, based on their best intelligence that SH had WMD. He acted like it, refused to allow the inspectors back in, and did his best to make his neighbors and everyone else think he had WMD. Based on the 1st Gulf War, he knew he'd get his clock cleaned by the USA. But he still kept on playing chicken with us. Why? I think the fear of his immediate neighbors was greater than the fear of the USA.

Even Kerry recently said knowing what we know now, he would have still gone into Iraq, then at the debates, he chastizes W for going in. Kerry calls the coalation that of the intimidated and bribed, but expects that in November he can go back to England and Australia and get them to "Team" with him?

The pertinent argument is that just because Kerry agreed that Saddam was "a threat", had to be "dealt with", etc..., does not mean that he would have kicked the inspectors out, told the U.N. and most of our biggest traditional allies to go "F" themselves, and rushed on in with a terrible and/or non-existent plan of how to run the occupation.

There are plenty of other ways to deal w/ "a threat", as Bush himself has shown w/ N. Korea and Iran. (Both real threats, FWIW). The problem is that this logical conclusion does not fit w the current climate of debate, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me. :cool:

N' N' No, Monsieur Speedre'

It t'was de Feranch who flippa le USA the weenre' fingre'. Wee?

I doubt if Kerry/Edwards and Congress had access to the same intelligence sources and info the administration did.; nor did other countries. If the admin. said Iraq had WMDs, and this led others to believe Iraq had them, then that was the best information at the time. Unfortunately, the admin. never had the definitive proof but went with it anyway. In addition, not many elected officials were opposed to finding the perps after 9/11.

The admin. merely had 2nd hand reports from people like Ahmed Chalabi, the former Iraqi dissident (and accused of fraud) who was a longtime Pentagon favorite who convinced GW and folks Saddam had WMDs (so he could squeeze in power). Chalabi was to be the interim leader of Iraq but as since fallen out of favor with the U.S. government. He's currently being investigated by the FBI for passing classified documents to Iran. So much for admin. buddies like him. The admin. also had Cheney's fervor, no small motivational source.

www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120117263.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Anyway, in addition to the vast majority of Americans who believed GWs "intelligence" reports, many govt. leaders did as well. Many of you still believe it. What makes it so hard to believe that members of Congress swallowed that story too?

Today (10/10/04), National Security Advisor Rice said President Bush was correct in launching the invasion of Iraq even if U.S. officials had known, as they do now, that the former Iraqi president had no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21905-2004Oct10.html

That sounds like backpedalng to cover their arses.

Sherwood

kerry has never said he didn't read the same intelligence reports the president did, even when the president said he did in the debates. As for other countries, British, Israeli and Russian intelligence among others suggested Saddam had weapons. Why is it that liberals just can't seem to accept that their puppet was for military action since the mid 90's and only changed his tune due to the Dean factor? of course now that he's got the tree hugger's vote he's back on the war wagon saying he'll do a better job. Of course his "not necessarily" comment as to whether or not he'd have removed Saddam during Friday's debate wasn't backing off what he said last year in support for removing Saddam even if no WMD were found.

One side note, due to it's continued support for terrorists and open distaste for the US our next target should be France. I can see the bumper stickers on the libs cars now "No War for Wine!"

Actually, France has a lot more experience dealing w/ terrorism than the U.S.A. If we had just handed Mousai over to the French back in 2001, 9/11 probably never would have happened. He would have sang like a bird when the frogs put his nuts in a vise. :cool:

What I'd like to hear is specifics of alternate policy(s). Its so hard to understand the difference between the parties this time around. I am not trying to stir anything up here but I see plenty of fault to go around.

"...Why is it that liberals just can't seem to accept...."

You're quick to stereotype and group one person's comments. It's not "accepting" Christian, it's understanding your perceptions.

"Tree-huggers"? That's a prejorative isn't it? What do you have against our environment? Is the air and water not polluted enough?

Sherwood

Mr Bush can eat my tax-cut for all I care, it doesn't matter. Taxes, taxes, taxes. Christ, can't we think any farther than our pocket books? So what, I get a few grand extra this year, woopee. Im going to have to pay it back ten times over for all the mess you greedy bastards have let Shrub drag us into. Boo. BOO!!!

You didn't answer my question. Also "tree-huggers" is a common term used to decribe the far-left who are always anti-war. Kerry's positions have changed as necessary to secure his candidacy. If Kerry is elected he will be one of the most ineffective presidents in history because he can't decide what he wants to do without refering to the polls. John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq for one reason and one reason only, if thisngs went well he could say he supported it and if things didn't go so well he could argue that he would have done it differently. The truth is he would have done nothing, just like he's done nothing of any real value in the senate for twenty years, that is unless you consider voting against major weapons systems currently in use in the war on terror or voting to cut inteligence spending by $7 billion AFTER 9/11 to be valuable to this country in some way. Let's face it Kerry is now and always has been weak on defense, just like he was weak in Vietnam. He's an empty suit with no idea of what leadership truly means, but don't worry, he has a plan for everything. I also hope the libs enjoy working until June every year to pay the government, why don't you give the rest of your money to the government, I'm sure they'll take care of you. ;)

That's funny, you actually believe the French are tough! France is and always has been a nation of appeasers. They appeased Hitler and were subsequently conquered by him. Now all they do is struggle for relevance. All we have to do is send in the Boy Scouts and they'll send up the white flags. :D

case in point. on Dave Letterman's July 1998 top ten list of how France will celebrate its World Cup victory: (among the typical "take a shower" and "getting le 'faced")

#8: surrender to Germany

:p