Election Decided by 'Skins Game

Knowingly in the minority here, but here goes anyway.

I don't expect to ever change someone's mind. To that point, it is silly to argue about. I do pay attention to other peoples opinions, cause sometimes they make a lot of sense.

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story. Iraqis, you want your freedom? Well help us fight these fuckers, and it's yours. Sucks for them, but freedom isn't free. I'm sure there is an easier way, but none of those have worked. The world is a shitty place.

My feelings on John Kerry- The man will say ANYTHING to get to the White House. It is so evident lately, that I am very scared of this man. Where will he settle? Which side of anything is he on? Does he define being tough on terrorism by talking EXTRA hard? Cause those days are gone, get the fuck over it and sack up. On the Today Show,this man actually promised that the U.S. will not be attacked while he is in office. Katie Currick (big Kerry supporter- from what I have seen) just about shit herself when he said this, and to her credit, she dug into him about it.



My feelings on the whole election- ENOUGH already. These political ads are not aimed at you and me. They are aimed at the 90% of this country that couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag. They are aimed at getting the dregs so fired up that they vote. The winner of this election will win due to stirring up the emotions of the brainless masses. This is a sad fact.
They can keep this job. I smoked a lot of dope in college, and I inhaled every time. You can keep that job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warthog

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story. Iraqis, you want your freedom? Well help us fight these fuckers, and it's yours. Sucks for them, but freedom isn't free. I'm sure there is an easier way, but none of those have worked. The world is a shitty place.

---

Ignoring the question of "how many of the insurgents are outside fighters and how many of them are Iraqis motivated to pick up arms b/c of the invasion"....

Your point is: we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

The number of young and disaffected men in the Muslim world who are potentially willing to take up arms against America is, for practical geopolitical purposes, all but infinite. Killing those already bent on suicide missions againt the US is undeniably a good thing. But doing so in a way that is guaranteed to replace them with ten new volunteers is the most foolish way to go about it. It is the classic case of dousing the fire with gasoline.

Even political void like angry whelk can see gaint pollution in america. from deep cavern to karaoke bar much change is need.

angry whelk drown politics, whelk is not partisan, whelk speaks for life, and bukkake drown the face of opressive. laking in filial piety, admistration must be drown in bukkake of disrespect.

shinjuku, ALL YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Remember 9-11 WSD? Lots of people died, and Kerry wants to go back to a pre 9-11 mentality. Guess you already forgot......

---

Don't ever, EVER say something like that to me again you ignorant piece of shit. You've said a lot of insulting things, to me, and others, but when you say something like that, you cross a dangerous line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warthog

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story.

---

They actually have very less stake in keeping iraq from freedom than you'd think. Al Qaeda is a multi-national organization. Iraq is a convenient staging ground due to its proximity to other countries with Islamic influenced governments. However, Al Qaeda could just as easily operate in Pakistan or Chechnya for example. The stake terrorist groups like Al Qaeda do have in Iraq is a religious one. Iraq has many holy cities to islam. Islam (not to be confused with fanatical Islamic fundamentalism) lends itself very nicely to government. Right or wrong, Islamic terrorists may feel that the U.S. is attempting to drive Islam out of the middle east and possibly even remove it from the world all together. More so, they may believe the U.S. is trying to replace it with Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warthog

My feelings on John Kerry- The man will say ANYTHING to get to the White House. It is so evident lately, that I am very scared of this man. Where will he settle? Which side of anything is he on? Does he define being tough on terrorism by talking EXTRA hard?

---

At this point, all he really can do about terrorism is talk. Until/unless he's elected, he's not in a position to do anything about terrorism. The responsibilty for setting foreign policy has for the last few presidencies been given to the President. For example, when congress passed a resolution giving President Bush the authority to do what he feels is right regarding Iraq. It has been a long time since congress has really used their power in the foreign policy of the U.S.

Interesting reads on the struggle for power between the president and congress over foreign policy are the letters from Helvidius and Pacificus written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton respectively.

"Hamilton [Pacificus] argued that the conduct of foreign relations was exclusively an executive function, except where the Constitution explicitly stated otherwise."

Madison (Helvidius) argued the opposite.

Letters Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

FACT PATROL

blah blah blah SO FUCKING WHAT blah blah blah
/FACT PATROL

---

WHO CARES WHEN THEY WENT MISSING and how long it took to be reported. The explosives are still gone. Somebody screwed the pooch. Who knows where or when they will turn up, but I sure as hell hope it isn't next Tuesday while I'm in line casting my vote for "the waffler" who wants to pick up where Clinton's left off at ACTUALLY FIGHTING TERRORISM DIRECTLY.

I'm out of this discussion after this, it's puking outside my window, and let's leave it at agreeing to disagree and voting for our own man. I still want to meet/ski with many people on this board, and I don't want politics to sour that. Our country is great because we can each have our own views, and although I see things differently than you and Brett, I respect your views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

John Kerry says that day didn't change him, and that terrorism should be only viewed as a nuisance.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Seriously dude, do some research, that's what the waffler said.

---

Actually, what Kerry said was, "''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Here's a link to verify that
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html


Glad I could do some research for ya.

wow, blurred taking something out of context. i would have never imagined.


edit: maybe blurred didn't take it out of context, he's just repeating Racicots interpretation.

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Kerry was a prosecutor before he got into politics, and made fighting organized crime a priority.

Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."

It's very interesting how Bush's campaign took a line from Kerry that means "it's a nuisance to wait in long security lines, but at least we'll be safe" and spun it to mean "terrorists ARE HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET!"

In 02/03 while waiting to board a flight in DIA, I remembered I had a mini-leatherman in my pocket. I stuck it in my pack, fully preparing for the klaxons to sound and get immediately arrested, but nothing happened.

Of course, I had to take off my shoes...

Feeling secure is not the same as being secure...unless, of course, you're running for president and you can get people to believe they will feel secure under your presidency. It's amazing Rove can get people to feel safer under a President who was running the show when American was attacked...he'll have an awesome career in the private sectory whenever the Redskins lose...I mean Bush loses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

Actually, what Kerry said was, "''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Here's a link to verify that
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html


Glad I could do some research for ya.

---

I didn't put quotes around what Kerry said dipshit, Still means the same thing though. He doesn't think terrorism should be the main focus right now. The turd in your room is waiting....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watersnowdirt

Don't ever, EVER say something like that to me again you ignorant piece of shit. You've said a lot of insulting things, to me, and others, but when you say something like that, you cross a dangerous line.

---

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...rama_queen.jpg

edit: nevermind. it's not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

A pussy in the White House could possibly get you killed.

---

Dude, you're right!!


I think I represent the entire nation when I say this:

Blurred, please don't run for president. I don't wanna die.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant,stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies dont like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

I don't wanna die.

---

Pussy. :D
..

America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfucking day, yeah! / America, fuck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah! / Terrorists, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to / America, fuck yeah! So lick my butt and suck on my balls! / America, fuck yeah! What you gonna do when we come for you now!
http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/8885_p003_thumb.jpg

For a fella who whines and bitches a lot about the (and I quote) "liberal media," he sure does rely on a lot of information that comes from the media.

Aaaaand, what he says is nothing most of us haven't heard before from the mouths of fearful Americans in places terrorists likely won't even think about striking. Since, ya know, historically, most attacks have been on areas of high human density (planes, buildings, buses, etc.).

I just have one thing to say to people voting for a candidate based on fear of another terrorist attack: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

I just have one thing to say to people voting for a candidate based on fear of another terrorist attack: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

---

werd (damn 10 characters rule...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

For a fella who whines and bitches a lot about the (and I quote) "liberal media," he sure does rely on a lot of information that comes from the media.

Aaaaand, what he says is nothing most of us haven't heard before from the mouths of fearful Americans in places terrorists likely won't even think about striking. Since, ya know, historically, most attacks have been on areas of high human density (planes, buildings, buses, etc.).

I just have one thing to say to people voting for a candidate based on fear of another terrorist attack: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

---

That asshole said a lot of things.

Campaigning for re-election in Boston on October 30, 1940, FDR had sworn: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Well, Peleliu ain’t Peoria. Roosevelt was lying when he made his declaration, just as he had lied repeatedly before and would lie repeatedly for the remainder of his life.

400,000 American boys died on foreign soil.

Are you seriously equating World War 2 with Iraq?

no he's simply trying to say that the guy who coined the phrase about fearing fear told people he wasn't sending troops out. its a pretty lame point though. doesnt make the fact that 'fearing fear is bad' wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

That asshole said a lot of things.

Campaigning for re-election in Boston on October 30, 1940, FDR had sworn: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Well, Peleliu ain’t Peoria. Roosevelt was lying when he made his declaration, just as he had lied repeatedly before and would lie repeatedly for the remainder of his life.

400,000 American boys died on foreign soil.

---

You're grasping at straws, kid. So weak.

Reminder: October 30, 1940 was before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Look for an NYT correction tomorrow...

---

Hey Summit! I found your correction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Miklaszewski, MSNBC

Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, H.M.X. and R.D.X. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no H.M.X. or R.D.X. and because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the H.M.X. and R.D.X.
...
Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of W.M.D. They found no W.M.D. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.

---

Remember, the weapons inspectors had already been in Al QaQaa as recently as March 8th. The US knew there were no WMDs there, so they never bothered to look until....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Miklaszewski, MSNBC

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no H.M.X. or R.D.X. or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government has officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it's possible -- they're not sure, they say, but it's possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war.

---

Hold on, is the pentagon arguing that between satellite imagery, predator drones, and overwhelming air superiority we failed to notice truck after truck (roughly 40 five-ton trucks) leaving one of the better known weapons depots in Iraq? A place which we suspected contributed to WMD production?

....but wait, there's more:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSNBC, 10/26/04 Transcript

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: ...blah blah blah ...They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was – at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

---

But wait, you ask (while scratching your head), what about that April 5th, 2003 AP report. The one in which the 3rd infantry passed through Al Qa Qaa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AP

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division said troops found thousands of five-centimeter by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants.

---

Well, what comes in white powder form?

HMX does,

http://www.xsd.com.cn/src/20030628/1...yte71r9000.jpg

And so does RDX

http://www.xsd.com.cn/src/20030628/1...ytevndo000.jpg


This is incompetence.

We were warned about not securing this stuff. It was there in early March. It was there in early April. No one bothered to secure it. By the time we got a proper search there in late May the stuff was gone. Then we either covered it up until now, or our government was clueless until now. I don't know which option I like less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

You're grasping at straws, kid. So weak.

Reminder: October 30, 1940 was before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

---

Yeah, kinda like Bush saying he was against nation building during his presidential campaign. Oh yeah except Al Qaeda was not attempting to take over the world. Neither was Iraq. That is, until they were given the chance. As long as we're looking at reports you should take a look at Duelfer's report.

The only straw I'll be grasping at will be in my victory cocktail on Tuesday evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will

Hey Summit! I found your correction!



Remember, the weapons inspectors had already been in Al QaQaa as recently as March 8th. The US knew there were no WMDs there, so they never bothered to look until....



Hold on, is the pentagon arguing that between satellite imagery, predator drones, and overwhelming air superiority we failed to notice truck after truck (roughly 40 five-ton trucks) leaving one of the better known weapons depots in Iraq? A place which we suspected contributed to WMD production?

....but wait, there's more:



But wait, you ask (while scratching your head), what about that April 5th, 2003 AP report. The one in which the 3rd infantry passed through Al Qa Qaa?



Well, what comes in white powder form?

HMX does,

http://www.xsd.com.cn/src/20030628/1...yte71r9000.jpg

And so does RDX

http://www.xsd.com.cn/src/20030628/1...ytevndo000.jpg


This is incompetence.

We were warned about not securing this stuff. It was there in early March. It was there in early April. No one bothered to secure it. By the time we got a proper search there in late May the stuff was gone. Then we either covered it up until now, or our government was clueless until now. I don't know which option I like less.

---

This is astounding. I was under the impression that there were no WMDs. Or wait, that there weren't enough. Oh no, wait. They were too old.

Give me a break for fuck's sake. 380 tons of weapons in a country that had, depending on reports betweeen 250,000 and 600,000 tons of weapons of Destruction not to mention Mass Destruction.

Jesus, it's like complaining of a toothache after being diagnosed with both Ebola and AIDS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I didn't put quotes around what Kerry said dipshit, Still means the same thing though. He doesn't think terrorism should be the main focus right now. The turd in your room is waiting....

---

...or...it's that he wants to control terrorism to the point that we don't NEED to live every day of our lives in fear of another terrorist attack. It's a statement - be a poorly worded one - that Kerry's plan for winning the war on terrorism is going to work so well that the terrorists won't have the capability to be anything more than a nuisance.

of course that's not what you'll read in the republican handbook though.

-Edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Yeah, kinda like Bush saying he was against nation building during his presidential campaign. Oh yeah except Al Qaeda was not attempting to take over the world. Neither was Iraq. That is, until they were given the chance.

---

You can't be seriously implying that Al Qaeda & Iraq are trying to take over the world. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. They're not trying to take over shit except for the hearts & minds of who they percieve are their enemies. What's the last country to be invaded by Al Qaeda? Yeah...

And what are you talking about "given the chance"? We went through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. We beat them down in record time during the first gulf war when they actually did invade Kuwait. That pretty much put their aspirations of any type of conquest in perspective - the perspective of 'not gonna happen'. Iraq trying to take over the world would be like the Michigan militia trying to take over America. There's no fucking way it would happen.

mr_g,

You're still grasping. Keep trying, persistence is an admirable trait to possess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Give me a break for fuck's sake. 380 tons of weapons in a country that had, depending on reports betweeen 250,000 and 600,000 tons of weapons of Destruction not to mention Mass Destruction.

---

So the place is already so fubared that proof of even more fubar is nothing to be concerned about?

[sarcasm]Yeah.... the next time I invade a country I'm going to steamroll right past the very stuff the IAEA had warned me about. Explosives whose location was very well known, and which are pretty much one of the more powerful military high-explosives available. Explosives that can be used to trigger a nuke. I'm going to make no effort to secure it, then I'm going to try and hide the fact, from the IAEA and my own country, that it was stolen out from under my nose. I'll even pressure the Iraqis to do the same. That's exactly what a competent invasion plan would include.[/sarcasm]

Considering that your 250,000-600,000 number is the mass of munitions, while I'm talking pure explosive material, I think we've got an apples and pears situation here.

This was a screw-up. One that should not have happened. One that was easily preventable. And we're paying for it now.

According to the Nelson Report, a private newsletter that circulates to embassies and Capitol Hill offices,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson report

...sources say it is unlikely that many roadside bombs are made from captured artillery shells, "taking a shell apart is incredibly dangerous and difficult, it has to be done by real experts, and we'd have seen more 'accidental explosions' if they were doing this on any scale. No... it's the RDX and HMX doing most of the damage, you can bet on it."

---

Experts guess that the amount of this material it takes to make a roadside bomb is a few pounds. How many bombs can they make with almost 377 tons?

The shit wasn't even under our watch when i t was moved. The whole thing is a joke. Kerry and his camp were going to release this story on Halloween, and it prolly would've been more effective then. They say it would take 40 trucks to move all that. Interestingly, Kerry is jumping all over this.....so why couldn't WMD's be moved at the same time? What a joke...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

so why couldn't WMD's be moved at the same time?

---

You seriously might be the only person left in America who still believes there were WMD's in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNG

You seriously might be the only person left in America who still believes there were WMD's in Iraq.

---

Once again, you missed my point again. If 380 tons of explosives are "missing", oh, nevermind......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Once again, you missed my point again. If 380 tons of explosives are "missing", oh, nevermind......

---

Is him 'fwaid?

Sorry, this thread is way too long and heated for me to read in its entirety, but if the original point has not been definitively addressed, the future of the world is safe, there's no way in hell the Skins will beat Green Bay this Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Once again, you missed my point again. If 380 tons of explosives are "missing", oh, nevermind......

---

I don't think you've got a point, at least not one better than 'if 380 tons of high explosives can dissappear, then so COULD the WMD's.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

Sorry, this thread is way too long and heated for me to read in its entirety, but if the original point has not been definitively addressed, the future of the world is safe, there's no way in hell the Skins will beat Green Bay this Sunday.

---

I guess the 40% of Americans who won't vote in November believe this. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNG

...
You can't be seriously implying that Al Qaeda & Iraq are trying to take over the world. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. They're not trying to take over shit except for the hearts & minds of who they percieve are their enemies. What's the last country to be invaded by Al Qaeda? Yeah...

And what are you talking about "given the chance"? We went through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. We beat them down in record time during the first gulf war when they actually did invade Kuwait. That pretty much put their aspirations of any type of conquest in perspective - the perspective of 'not gonna happen'. Iraq trying to take over the world would be like the Michigan militia trying to take over America. There's no fucking way it would happen.

---

That is the opposite of what I was saying. What I was saying or implying is that the only person that did not know what Hitler/Tojo were trying to accomplish was Neville Chamberlain.

When Bush said he was against nation building there was a threat out there a big threat. But he was not sitting on the sidelines of WWII saying he would not send troops or nation build.

FNG, what is this "First Gulf War" shit. There was no peace treaty. There was a cease-fire. The cease-fire was in place to insure Saddam disarmed completely and totally. He did not. He was not able to prove he had(or for some reason would not). We went through 16 resolutions via the UN trying to get him to do so. Made Regime change our national policy in 1998. Then we get smacked in the nose. 3000 people die. We take out Al Qaeda(loosely translated "The Base").

At this point is blatantly obvious that the status quo in the Middle East will not abide. By law Iraq has violated UN resolution upon resolution. We are guaranteed winning militarily there. Thus providing the best avenue through which to build a democracy. We as you said beat the Iraqi regulars quickly. The post war peace keeping/nation building has been a roller coaster. There has been amazing progress made, but quite a few mistakes made along the way. Some of the mistakes avoidable, some not. but this expectation of perfection is ridiculous.

There is no hand book on how to do this at all. Each situation is different from ones in the past and on top of that is changing from day to day. I am disappointed at some of the mistakes that have been made. But "more boots on the ground" is not the simple answer to any of them. It could have helped, but the evidence that it would have is far from empirical. Sealing off the borders? How? erect a fence? Additionally, these terrorists aren't sneaking across a border to bomb a discoteque. they have made quite a few headlines for killing troops and innocents alike. However, they are dying in much greater numbers than they can fill. Zarqawi said just two weekends ago that he cannot continue fighting based upon his own "re-enlistment" numbers. he is losing.

Freedom will take hold, just like it is in Afghanistan. Neither place is perfect. There are still extremists in both places. Hell, almost 220 years down the line one of our very own extremists blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building. You cannot ever get rid of them. some times they don't act alone. sometimes they have their own political parties. KKK ring a bell?

I do think Bush will win a Tuesday from today. If John Kerry does, I don't see the world changing at all. He'll find out the same things Bush has, or that he should have known in the first place if he'd ever bothered to attend his Senate Inteligence Committee meetings. But as history suggests, no matter how badly a President fucks something up. Whether you're Jimmy Carter letting hostages be kidnapped or kissing Brezhnev on his way in to Afghanistan. Or you're Tricky Dick Nixon, trying to fix gas prices or trying to employ a B.S. "Peace with Honor" strategy. We somehow find a way to plow through whatever gets in our way.

This next weeks gonna be fun, regardless. I can't wait to see what will hit the fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyption

Yeah, kinda like Bush saying he was against nation building during his presidential campaign. Oh yeah except Al Qaeda was not attempting to take over the world. Neither was Iraq. That is, until they were given the chance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyption

FNG, what is this "First Gulf War" shit. There was no peace treaty. There was a cease-fire. The cease-fire was in place to insure Saddam disarmed completely and totally. He did not. He was not able to prove he had(or for some reason would not). We went through 16 resolutions via the UN trying to get him to do so. Made Regime change our national policy in 1998. Then we get smacked in the nose. 3000 people die. We take out Al Qaeda(loosely translated "The Base").

---

What are you trying to say here? I made no mention of a peace treaty or a cease-fire. I was simply illustrating that Iraq was not a threat. I think we're on the same page there, but I don't understand what you mean by, "That is, until they [Iraq & Al Qaeda?] were given the chance."

Going back to something you & 13 were talking about, Pearl Harbor's relevence to our enterance into WWII is in no way comperable to 9/11's relevence to our enterance into Iraq. Japan clearly attacked us at Pearl Harbor. They declared war on us as did Germany. Iraq did none of those things. George W. Bush's personal suspicion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 is the closest parrallel that can be drawn between Iraq & 9/11.

http://www.soulskier.com/kerry_wafflehouse.jpg

^^^Blurred's commercial break when he runs out of spew material.^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Freedom will take hold, just like it is in Afghanistan.

---

http://www.arcticchat.com/forums/html/emoticons/eek.gifhttp://www.arcticchat.com/forums/htm.../slaphappy.gif