Cool, I really think he can ( I voted for him ). The other issue is, if there is no support he must do it anyway. Don't forget the US went to the UN and waited and waited.

I think that now that the rest of the world see that we THE USA believe in what we are doing (at least 51 or 52% of us) things will change.

That's really what I meant Juan. Cave in to bullies, and you must always give them your lunch money...until you decide to fight back. But if cool chick chooses to cave in, Spain's the place to be...there, or France. ;)

Sorry, I thought you were telling me to move to Spain...... oops!

Well, one thing you will never see...is a radical islamic government celebrating a republican's administration...Carter certainly allowed the US to be humiliated by Iran....just as the Iranians say.

Flintstone, Iran supported Bush.

Who said anything about "caving in?" Iraq IS NOT TERRORISM. Duh.

erv, I honestly think that if Bush chose a risk country to invade instead of Iraq, the world would've been supportive. Many countries are concerned about these real threat countries.

So, if Bush addresses these countries, I presume they would be supportive. Let's hope it's not too late and we can regain these countries' trust.

Sure...that is why they are burning his image in effigy on election day in your first post of this thread...LOL......obviously they were suckering you liberals...just like they always do.

lol

I think they wanted Bush because Bush helps their cause. It's already working.....

Cool, I guess we must wait and see now. Have faith!

CC - agreed, but whereas Iraq, Iran and Syria have tangible "heads of state," the Pakistani PM is virtually powerless. He's surrounded by gangs of bad guys. They may do him in before we can raise a finger.

we should've raised the finger a while ago.

I say just invade those no-man's land. Hell, make a secret deal with Masharraf, so it doesn't even look bad for him. Screw it. That's the area that I fear the most right now.

huh. . . huh. . . she said "climax"

LOL! Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Democratic platform in '08? The "Glass the Desert" campaign. ;)

porsche, you really should take your "thing" out of your hand now.

:D

dd74, I've felt this way for a long time. This "democrats" want to roll over and "give up" is ludicrous. Terrorism is what I'm interested in combatting, and I would be willing to fight myself for same.

But whatever. People believe what people like Rush tell them or something..I dunno, I can't figure it out.

cooll, I think your ideas are somewhat interesting yet a bit misguided. I find it interesting that a BHL dem also is interested in Porsches and the life style within. I always thought that those with social reform in there hearts would drive a Ford Focus and veiw this sort of community as meaningless and wasteful. Please consider this - even if the towers didn't go down, we had every right, yes right, to do Iraq. Even Albright acknowledged the breaking of several sanctions over a period of years. Bushes mistake was to play the WMD card way to heavy - should have stook to the true reasons. Can't play the Afgan thing and the Iraq thing the same - think WWII - two wars simultaneously and unrelated. BTW - pleanty of right and left media to go around, comes down to if your the type to take a punch or give one.

But what benefit was it in the war on terrorism? Iraq was contained, in the form of the UN was there.

Other countries/areas are not contained and have been allowed to continue and grow in strengh, weapons, etc. What's the benefit? I see no benefit in Iraq, just resulting inaction re: these other countries.

It's so frustrating.

Terrorism is the platform but not the reason. It is unfortunit that the parties listen to their consultants would understand the "pain points" that Americans feel. The action is just, the explanation to the populous is mis guided. At some point, the only world power has to make a stand. Many beleive we have no right to invade another nation, but the thing is, we are not doing this in order to steal the country away the way that imperial nations did years ago. Communication wouldn't allow it.

Afgan is about terroism as is sevral other activies underway. Iraq is about taking action for countless mis deeds. The UN in all it's weakness doesn't nor will ever take a stand unless it is absolutly backed into a courner. Made do with the first middle east war - they had no choice. This conflict was far more complex and stood more on prevention of the eneviatable rather than a reflex action.

Besides, did you really want those two (Kerry & Edwards) in or is it that you just wanted Bush out. Voting for them to get GW out is far worse than not voting at all.

Face it - you want to make a real difference - get hot and heavy over your local politics. That will have the quickest and most direct impact on your quality of life and your such for personal wealth and well being.

Obama baby!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe 27% voted for Keyes? The same Keyes who said he wanted to make restitution for decendents of slaves? I mean, cmon.

And to answer your question, I feel Bush helps the terrorists recruit more (this has been substantiated), and thus I fear the symbol Bush has become, one to be defeated at all costs. Will they do it, I sure hope not, but the terrorists are having a field day getting new recruits.

scary stuff.

Keyes is almost an enigma of a person. I've never quite understood him.

Obama's got some impressing to do before '08, though.