Third Party & Independents: Archives

My mum declared over dinner this evening that America will get what they deserve. If Americans vote for Bush then they deserve him.

I was about to argue that but then I stopped and thought about it.

Yes, America will get what it deserves.

Good luck all of you. See you in four years time.

Why would you think they’d take responsibility for their actions in 4 years, when they’ve done no such thing in the past 4?

I suspect there will be some other goat to pin it on by then.

Yes, Rosli, please tell your mum we will get what we deserve…a President who genuinely cares about protecting and serving the United States of America, ALL Americans, not just the ones who agree with his point of view. The U.S. is not Los Angeles, New York City, and Miami. We are a great big country with people from all walks of life, who believe in a days work for a days pay, and that days pay should belong to the person that works for it, not anyone else. John Kerry wanted to pull us out of Iraq. Maybe Iraq was a mistake, maybe it wasn’t, but if we pull out now, then the terrorists will be emboldened and will start attacking us again. Who will come to our aide? The usual…nobody. We are alone in this world when it comes to our own defense. People from other countries will just have to try and understand our mindset.

Hurray! We win. I think of all of the times I shook my head as the dems and libs on this blog said, Kerry will win, Kerry is our savior, John Forbes Kerry is the light that leads to salvation. And every last one of you, who said those things, were on the wrong side of history. One day, you’ll get that the left’s mentality about things is NOT mainstream. That too often, people have been intoxicated by the alphabet channel kool-aid complaints, and that patriots and love for this country will flock towards “morals” and “virtue” long before it will approach “nuance” and “contradiction.”

Today was a victory for this country. I stayed up until midnight, until CBS called Ohio, and then slept more soundly than I have in months.

It was soo funny, to see George Stephenopolous’ jubilant face before, when the ridiculous exit polls were showing Kerry with a smashing victory, to later, with the dejected, glassy eyes of a man without hope later in the night. Your mainstream media at work.

Perhaps if the left could just outlaw talk radio and Fox News, then no one would ever hear the truth. THEN the left might take back at least some measure of control in this country.

To rev_matt, a culture of life doesn’t mean outlaw all abortion, it means outlaw partial birth abortion, and here here… it’s about time.

Kudos to rev-matt also, for the correct interpretation of “Protect Marriage.” And here here for that interpretation as well.

We will FINALLY be drilling in ANWR. Thank the good lord. That will literally mean a billion dollars a year into our endowment here in Alaska. We just got the Gas pipeline approved, and now we have enough in the Senate to actually get things done.

Here’s a thought I don’t know if anyone noticed. The Center of the country, on a map, where the population is still small, relative to the outlying states, was overwhelmingly in support of Bush. The hometowns of America, folks with morals, people who believe in families, and freedom, all overwhelmingly support the President. It’s the corrupt, urban areas, that house the democrats. Why is that? In places where you can find drugs or a hooker as easy as a big mac… that is where the left rules. Interesting.

CER —

It does get harder to blame Bill Clinton the farther away his presidency gets, but there’s got to be somebody. Who do you think will be the pigeon this term?

A little disapointed by the result as I don’t think Dubya deserved to win based on his poor record over the last few years.

Morality seems to have been the clinching issue for a lot of the electorate, and I think homophobia was unscrupulously exploited to pump up the Bush base. This will do nobody any good in the long run.

Anyway Dubya won, and will now at least be held responsible for whatever happens in Iraq and also hopefully with regard to deficit. He could come up trumps, but if not there is a greater chance of the architects of these policies being held accountable.

I hope the next four years work out for you, and that the rest of us don’t live to regret your choice. I trust we won’t.

My interest in US politics is now sated. Thanks to the WatchBlog peeps, it’s been a good and informative cultural exchange, and although I inch closer to understanding the mind set which Pam refers to, I still find it a little depressing.

I am off to watch the football.

Slán.

Nanook, Its interesting you say you can find hookers where the left rules. Seems to me that Nevada, the only state where prostitution is legal went Republican.

Also, you are lying to yourself if you think “culture of life” doesn’t ban all abortion. It does.

It’s a sad day for this ONCE great nation. I feel betrayed and disgusted that I share soil with souls who believe that Bush is the better choice for our land. I’m not a Kerry fanatic by any means but change is good.
Four more years of sending jobs like mine to India and big business tax cuts to do it.

I’m embarrased to be an American today.

Our culture includes plenty of humor at the expense of our bogeymen, the enemies of freedom and truth, but fundamentally it is a positive one. I just didn’t realize until now that this America is a subculture, a parallel universe. The real America is the one most of the world sees. Now that they see the results of this election, they’ll think that they’re right.

Nanook,

I am from the midwest, which overwhelmingly supports Bush. However, I live in New York City, which overwhelmingly supports John Kerry. I understand both mindsets, and I still think Bush is very bad for this country.

America voted for Bush and now they/we must accept the consequences.

Drugs and prostitution are available anywhere in this country. if you don’t know this, you have not looked hard enough. To state that it only exists in the big cities is ridiculous. Just ask any kids in any high school in America and they’ll tell you where you can get drugs.

What most of America fails to see is the consequences of Bush’s misguided foreign policy. By polarizing America and the world and making it acceptable to hate America, Bush has welcomed the terrrorists onto our home turf. The next terrrorist attack is going to be a doozy and when it happens we can only hope Bush doesn’t sit in a classroom for seven minutes and then fly around the country waiting for his incompetent staff to tell him what to do. Leader, my ass.

Tell me about it Cameron.
I can’t believe this happened.
God help us all.

Alejo —

Well that depends on if the Dems get a bounce in the mid-terms in 06 and who comes in and starts being unpatriotic.

Slan Wrote
“Morality seems to have been the clinching issue for a lot of the electorate, and I think homophobia was unscrupulously exploited to pump up the Bush base.
And I am finding great pleasure in thought that Bush can thank Massachusets Supreme Court (and gay rights activists) for his victory.

Congratulations to Bush’s team for an extraordinarily effective campaign - please send them to Iraq to help us out of the mess Bush started; then, have them attack the contemptible deficit Bush created. We need this effective a team more in the administration than in a campaign.

Shame on Kerry’s team for not understanding that people need to vote FOR, as opposed to AGAINST somebody - please send them Crawford, where they can revel in the daft simplicity they accuse Bush of having. If you cannot run a more effective campaign, could we have trusted you with the country?

Pity the American people, who didn’t know what to do, and therefore chose the consistency of embarrassment rather than the nuance of thoughtfulness.

rev matt,
Bush has not taken responsiblity and accountability for his first term. What makes anyone think the he will take responsiblity and accountability for a nuke set off in the Middle East in 2005?

Source: The Bible Code

Can “We the People” change Mankind before 2012?

The power of change was in the hands of the Democrats all along.

The Repuplican base had a hand in the reelection of W. I would hesitate to think that the any specific group made up the majority of the 58 million votes for Bush. There must have been some other representatives present. Call them moderate Republicans who voted for a candidate, not a position against one.

The lack of a strong candidate obviously encouraged enough democrats to stay home and skip voting. This should have been an easy incumbent to defeat. Perhaps next time the Democrats will adjust the party platform more towards the center where the majority of the voters lie. Instead of allowing the minority fringe elements to be the representatives of the party, yes they speak loudly, but obviously the message is not being received.

Don’t blame “stupid Americans” for voting for Bush. Blame the others for not voting for Kerry.

Sometimes I wish that there were 5 columns here so that the loony toons from the far left and far right would have some where else to go and play.

Cameron, it surprises me that you actually believe “BUSH” has made it acceptable to hate America. That is utter nonsense. Bush supporters love this country, that is why we voted for Bush. Kerry would put every special interest except for mine and yours before your and mine.

I find it interesting that no one would address the geography of the race. I just heard on the radio that 92% of the goegraphical area of this country supported Bush. That’s county by county. Which means that only the highly dense, secular parts of big-city society favor the leftist agenda. Is there something in the city water?

For Becky,

Bush has never laid claim to banning all abortion, you have taken too long a draft of the Susan Sarandon “Keep your hands off our bodies” Kool-Aid. He does want to ban Partial Birth Abortion, and I can’t think of a single person who will say to me in-person, that they think it’s OK and should stay. I’m a heartbeat believer: Until it has a hearbeat, you have a choice, after that, your a murderous dog if your kill that baby. Before the heartbeat, Cancer can grow just like a fetus, but it’s the heartbeat that makes a distinction for me.

I want to address abother thing I hear a ton of on this Blog. Everyone keeps talking about Bush’s go-it-alone stance on this war, and his “misguided foreign policy.” I want to scream this: THE PEOPLE YOU WANTED ON OUR SIDE WERE ON THE TAKE FOR CHRIST’S SAKE! THEY WOULDN”T HAVE COME OVER FOR ANYTHING!

There I feel better, but wait there’s more.

Ryon,
You feel betrayed and disgusted by your countrymen, and you feel that change is good. Well, there are a “MAJORITY” of your countrymen, Bush supporters, who feel betrayed that 50 million people keep trying to CHANGE the values that this country was founded on. Much as the secular-socialist dregs of society would like to change this country to another failing nation like many in Europe, it is your betrayers who love this country and what it was founded on, and would roll over and die if another far left president was allowed to tear another million strands from the fabric of this country, who actively disagree.

Funny how the baby boomers, who once wanted to liberate the U.S. from Republicans like McCarthy and Nixon, are now the morality group supporting neocons like Bush, et al. If Dems want to blame someone for this neocon trend, look at the Federal Elections Commission and FCC. The moment the FCC allowed unequal air time on radio (Rush and otherscame to life) and Fox News got on cable in ‘96, they have been polluting folks minds with terrible propaganda. Don’t believe me? Well, think about 40%+ of voters who think we found WMD in Iraq, or that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Despite all the Bush administration scandals, morals was a chief voting motivator in Election ‘04. I have nothing against President Bush. It’s some folks in his cabinet and White House staff that should be jailed. Next year, I’m very interested in the Joe Wilson investigation and outcome.

JT,
Joe Wilson investigation? Can you elaborate?

Nanook,
Your view of America amazes me. While Bush may have won the real estate game in America, Kerry and Edwards won the cultured urban areas of the country. Bottom Line is that the majority of America now lives in the city. These slow transfer from the woods of Our Nation has been going on for the last 60 years and only in the last four years has evened out. Just look at New York City and you will notice that its population is bigger than 90% of the states Bush won. Now unless the “Red States” want to destory your acres of land than I strongly suggest you listen to what the people who have to live on less than 800 sq ft. of property need to survive in the Godless Corporate World Americans call a city.

FYI: The legal defination of life is brain activity.

On Iraq, its not “Bush’s go-it-alone stance on this war” that is the problem. It is the reality fact that Bush and Rove used Our Country’s need to deal with Iraq as a political pawn on known false information and than failed to execute the War porperly. Our Military may of worked great, but Our Administration of Polictical Policey on Security sucks.

Our population who did not vote for Bush is 49% plus 48 million just FYI.

Nanook:

i find that 92% stat very interesting, however i think it’s a bit misleading due to the fact that no one takes into account the enormous size of the state of alaska.

aside from that, i have a problem with the topic of morals. i realize that this nation was founded on certain in moral grounds that a lot of people don’t want to change. (i don’t completely understand it, but i accept it.) but i’d like to clarify one thing about us on the left. when i support issues like pro-choice and gay marriage, it’s not my intent to “tear another million strands from the fabric of this country,” like you imply. i just don’t believe that anyone has the right to impose beliefs on another. my question to you is what’s wrong with tolerance? also i don’t think we should look down on other countries - ie failing ones in europe like you say. they have different ways of seeing the world, and i don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

I don’t remember the word “morals” mentioned in the Constitution.
Is this something I missed?

Cole said: “i just don’t believe that anyone has the right to impose beliefs on another.”

Unless of course its your belief that they MUST invest in government-controlled retirement… they MUST work at certain jobs for only the number of hours you set.. they MUST get the ammount of money you declare per hour… they MUST abide by restrictive campaign finance laws when donating their money to causes they believe in… they MUST have large % of their money taken to fund scientific research that will never benefit them… they MUST only be able to get potentially life-saving drugs that have gone through the huge, expensive government bureaucracy…

The liberals have their own “faith” which is based in socalist principles and the belief that government knows better than individuals how to run their economic lives. These are their “values”- they are no less religious or anti-freedom than the beliefs of the religious right.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are the only ones who can actually utter that phrase “i just don’t believe that anyone has the right to impose beliefs on another” with any serious conviction. We believe that unless you are harming someone else or shirking a voluntary assumed duty, you should be able to do as you wish.

Lovely idealism, however we are too much of an interdependant society for it to hold much bearing. Regardless whether the issue is environmental or social or economical, you will always be imposing upon someone else’s views on the world. That’s just how it is. The goal here is to find some sort of middle ground.

Henry,
The Joe Wilson investigation is the White House leak of a CIA Operative (Wilson’s wife). This goes back to the state of union address by Bush when he said those famous lines about “Sadam buying uranium in Niger”. Wilson was previously sent to Niger, investigated, told the White House this was not true, yet Bush went ahead and said it. Outraged, Wilson told the papers that it wasn’t true, so to get even, the White House leaked the CIA identity of his wife. Karl Rove told Chris Matthews, MSNBC, “she was fair game.” A “independent counsel” has been assigned by John Ashcroft that is currently conducting grand jury investigations.

Misha
Get real. Personal responsibility? Freedom? Pro-Constitution?
Thats just plain crazy talk. Without the govt. dictating how we live and controlling every aspect of our lives, we would never make it.

Petey
Right now, true Democrats and Republicans would be closer to being middle ground.
Liberals are no where near the middle ground.
If its between moral issues or more govt. control of individual lives, the moral issues will win. This was proven Tuesday night.
For the good our country, I hope the Democratic party will finally see how flawed liberalism really is and finally come to the center.

Henry
The bible code? Careful or you’ll start believing in the NWO conspiracy like me. LOL
Seriously though, whether true or not, isn’t that a really interesting topic.

As an Australian living in Asia that travels to Europe regularly I just cannot believe the self image America has of itself.

At least John Kerry knew that the majority of people in the world see the US of A as anything but the home of the free and the land of the brave, in fact we see a bunch of ignoramuses led by a nazi who has a robber baron in his ear.

The saddest thing to me is that we have pretty much the same thing in Australia.

I would just like someone to tell me where the compassion and caring has gone. It used to be in Australia we had free education to the end of university free health care and our old people had a pension the could live on now its all going the same way as the US if you can’t pay you get thrown away.

I’m OK I make a lot of money but somehow it doesn’t make me happy like I thought it would.

Petey,

Well said. We should be striving for middle ground.

People are correct that Kerry was too left of center, that’s why he lost.

On the other side of the coin, Bush is too right of center. The homophobia and infringement on civil liberties has to stop. In an article this morning, they are reporting that 51% of americans are pleased by the election outcome, but 24% of americans are afraid for the future based on the election outcome. That’s an awfully strong reaction… displeased, upset… sure, but afraid? How many people could say they were afraid when Clinton was re-elected, even if you loathed the guy? I think the Bush administration has given people very good reason to be afraid.

What happens next in our country is going to be directly in response to how Bush approaches this 2nd term. If he remains far right of center and pushes a strong republican agenda, there is going to be division in our country unlike any of us have seen.

Bush has already closed communication with the populations of almost every major city in the US, so I’m not certain people are even going to be willing to listen to anything he has to say.

If the Bush administration fails in coming to center ground, and fails in getting opponents to listen, I’m worried civil disobedience may not be so civil anymore. The main reason the protests in NYC during the RNC didn’t get violent was because people still had hope that the future might be different. This Bush victory may have altered many of those people’s perception in a bad way.

We all have to understand that America is changing. If 90% of counties voted for Bush but he was only able to take 51% of the popular vote, that speaks to the distribution of our populace right there. People in smaller rural areas have a different perception of the world than the urban dwellers. Each group deals with quite different issues on a day to day basis. If we cannot establish a government that can keep both sides interests in mind, we are probably going to find ourselves on track for another civil war.

Our political system is failing us, because it’s only able to offer 2 viable parties. It’s evident that most people aren’t happy with either.
I know other parties are out there, but they don’t seem to be able to get candidates elected. I don’t know what the solution is, but something has to change in our political system or we are going to just become more and more a nation divided.

Gary
If it is really such a bad thing and it really bothers you that much, then why don’t you lead by example?
Take 30 grand or so, live a simple life and give everything else you make, to help those who you think need it or to help fund so-called govt. programs.

It really bugs me when celebrities, such as moore and his ilk, and rich people, such as soros and jesse jackson, will preach how much people should depend on govt. for everything but then they aren’t willing to practice what they preach. If they really cared about the people and not the money, they would follow the example above.
(I do not know you or your financial situation and I am not trying to imply that you are one of these hypocritical wealthy types)

kctim,
On the bible code I guess will see in the next 365 days or so.

By the way have you check out the National Intellegent reform bill HR 10 yet? It seems like after three years we still do not have a stratigic plan to capture OBL according to Powell. Sorry for no link, but I need to sleep.

I’m more relieved that Kerry and Edwards (and Tom Daschele) lost, than Bush won. Bush isn’t perfect by a long ways, and I can understand people not liking Bush and some of his policies, but have difficulty understanding how they could still prefer Kerry and Edwards (both lawyers).

Fortunately, there are enough people whose values don’t resonate with the likes of Kerry and Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Daschele, Gephardt, Charlie Rangel, Pelosi, Graham, Howard Dean, and other ilk.

Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, George Soros, and Barbara Streisand aren’t saying much today.

If you look at the area of each state (Red vs Blue), you’ll see that most of the area of each state is Red (Republican). The Blue (Democrat) areas are in the inner cities and southern US borders. How revealing ? http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

If Kerry had his way for the last 20 years, we wouldn’t have any military and defense systems. Clinton had no respect for the military, which is why Clinton gutted the military during his 8 years, and lost the nuclear security codes ( not once, but twice ).

For once, I’m glad we have a President that’s not kissin’ and suckin’ up to the UN and the French government and other ilk, who were all involved and stealing from the “Oil for Food” program. And I’m glad someone is finally going after these terrorist….we’ve already allowed the terrorists to grow too strong for too long.

And other countries don’t have to help, but they should stay out of the way. And thanks to Tony Blair, Britain, Australia, and 90 other nations, we’ve got the terrorist on the run.

One big difference between Kerry and Bush.
Kerry doesn’t do as he preaches…Kerry’s record doesn’t support his claims.
Kerry’s biggest problem is himself…..his voting record is pretty hard for some people to ignore.

Bush, sticks with a hard decision, even if it isn’t popular. If it weren’t for people like Bush and Roosevelt and Truman and Reagan who were willing to do the right thing even when it wasn’t popular, we might very well be speaking German and saluting a NAZI flag (or something else).

And, I’ve heard a lot of crap about people saying that Bush is cramming religion down their throat. Well, I haven’t seen that at all. In fact, I’ve heard Bush many times say that he’s tolerant of all religions and faiths, and have seen no evidence that anyone who is not has been mistreated. Besides, one of the cornerstones of this great nation is that people of all faiths are all Americans.

Daniel: I’ve heard a lot of crap about people saying that Bush is cramming religion down their throat….have seen no evidence that anyone who is not has been mistreated.

Bush used the Amercian people’s fear of gay peoeple to turn out his base during the election, and 11 states voted to ban same-sex marriage.

The electorates intolerance of gay people is based on ignorance and extreme Christian doctrine. i.e. The religious beliefs of one section of the population, was used as a basis to descriminate against a scary minority. Therefore, Bush did indeed cram religion down the throat of those with a differing view point.

There’s no room for people in the US who don’t adhere to our religious beliefs

It is now offically OK to descrminate against a minority in the US again, and all because it says so in the bible.

If you look at the area of each state (Red vs Blue), you’ll see that most of the area of each state is Red (Republican). The Blue (Democrat) areas are in the inner cities and southern US borders.

Daniel,
Exactly what does this prove? That the more rocks there are in the soil determine who should be president and whose values are more important? Those small bits of blue area represent a much vaster population than the vast tracts of land portrayed by the red areas. More importantly, they represent people who are used to living with many other people, and people who differ from them in religion, race, et al. The red areas represent (largely) a bunch of people who live only around other people like themselves, and even then don’t like the differences they see. Xenophobia reins in America, and intolerance grows every day Bush is allowed to promote it. Those people living in the blue areas see what the rest of the world sees…that America is not alone in the world and cannot survive without the world’s support. Our military is stretched too thin just by invading a rouge state like Iraq…how can we expect to take on the rest of the World???

Daniel,

The so-called war on terrorism - actually on Iraq, a country which didn’t treat the USA and was not even a menace to its neighborgh, weakened by 30 years of dictatorship + 12 years of inefficient embargo - has made so far more than 100,000 civilian deaths ! There is no such a thing as a clean war, as you can see here (Warning: explicit images of violence).

September 11 made about 3,000 victims, and the world strongly condemned terrorism. But now, on our side, some radical christians are killing even more people and pretend they are doing such crimes in the name of Jesus ??? Can we call them terrorist too ?

Please, PLEASE, think about that.

God Bless Am… The World, but will God forgive George W Bush ?

Many IRAQI people are happy to be rid of Saddam.
Saddam and anyone like him need to be
brought down. Yes, IRAN, N. Korea, and any
other country of such ilk better watch out.
However, unlike Saddam, they haven’t attacked
any of their neighbors yet, but they’d better
not be caught harboring or funding terrorists.
It obviously wouldn’t be easy to liberate IRAQ.
Perhaps we should have waited until IRAQ did
something against else to US or other country,
and then nuke the entire country…but then,
that would kill a lot of IRAQI civilians.

So, the US is doing it the hard way and
honorable way, and Americans are dying to
liberate the IRAQ people from Saddam
and the grip of crazy hateful intolerant terrorists.

On the gay issue…Bush never used fear of gay
people to get votes. You are drawing
non-sequitur conclusions.
And claims that radical Christians are killing
more people than terrorists is so ridiculous
and won’t even try to explain the problem
with that claim.

Bush isn’t saying gays can’t
have civil unions or get married….he (like
many) just don’t think they should have the
right to certain privileges such as
Social Security, Medicare, and other laws and
benefits specifically designated to a
married man and women and family.
It’s not that gays are being discriminated
against. It’s just that these benefits are
targeted for man and woman marriages.

I do think gays should have the same rights
of hospital visitation, property inheritance (
property can be willed anyway to anyone when
they die).

So that only leaves a few other items:
Social Security, taxes, and
medical benefits for qualified dependents.

Medical benefits is entirely up to employers.
That’s their choice and right to determine,
despite the effort to make laws forcing them
to provide those benefits. Personally, if I were
an employer and the government tried to force
me to provide medical benefits, I’d simply choose
to provide NO medical benefits….which is exactly
what may happen.

So, it seems it’s really about money ?
Perhaps gays should be happy they don’t have
to pay a marriage penalty tax like
us married men and women do now ?

I’ve got no fear of and have nothing against
gays, people of all races, gender, faith,
secularism, or level of wealth.

But, I do get sick and tired of the few that are
constantly trying to get special treatment,
and get laws changed that don’t need it.

Like affirmative action, that only increases
racism and hatred. Too often, I’ve seen
jobs and college acceptance going to the less
qualified, and that does not sit well with
those that are more qualified. For those that
think they are disadvantaged, they need to quit
blaming everyone else for everything, pick
themselves up, dust themselves off, and start
working for a living and stop waiting for
handouts, and stop whining about how hard
they got it. If they have a truly legitimate
case, report it to the police or take the
offenders to court.

About the claim the US is killing more people
is ridiculous. The US military is trying to
preserve life, while trying to eliminate the
terrorists. They don’t want to harm innocent
civilians. The US military is bleeding and dying
to help a nation free itself from the grip of
intolerant and hateful radical fanatics.
The US military deserves our praise and thanks.
The US is bleeding and dying for a noble cause.
Unfortunately, innocent people die, but it’s
important to remember that it is the fault of
the terrorists; not the US troops!

And I’ve heard a lot of crap about the US
creating more terrorists than previously existed.
Bull ! Those terrorists already existed.
They’re coming to IRAQ to confront their
enemy ( which is Democracy, Freedom, and
Inalienable Human Rights for all ).
My opinion is much like Bush’s …. Bring ‘em on !
Then we won’t have to waste a lot of time and effort
trying to find what hole or rock those low life scum
are hiding under.

The election is over.
What is truly radical and ridiculous is
claiming Bush and Christians are murderers.
And trying to paint the war against terrorism
as a Christian religious war, and trying to make
the US troops out to be evil murderers just
sounds like what it is…whining.

So, YOU please, PLEASE, think about that,
and please try to get a grip on reality,
try sticking to the facts, and you won’t be so
prone to drawing non-sequitur conclusions.

Daniel,
I have been waiting for someone to post that the war in Iraq is acting as a terrorist magnet that makes us all safer. The idea only works if you assume that there are a set amount of terrorists, that all of the fighting in Iraq is by foreign terrorists, and that it takes an awful lot of terrorists to do anything.
First, why is it better for terrorists to kill our troops than anyone else? I think the total dismissal of our casualties that I have seen is horrible! Everyone on the right says “we haven’t had another attack yet, so Bush has made us safer! what do you call over 1100 dead soldiers? The right wing media won’t even let us honor the dead by saying their names on TV (who’s unpatriotic, Sinclair?)
Second, terrorists are not an army. They do not get orders from on high and all go swooping into Iraq. The fighters in Iraq are predominantly Iraqis who have been told by thier religious and secular leaders that the united states has come to take their oil and destroy their religion. This perception was not helped by such things as President Bush referring to the war as a crusade, and our sole security focus being on the oil fields. There are a few outside terrorist leaders there coordinating these attacks, but it is a local insurgency, just like you would be a part of if some Islamic power took over our government. Every time we destroy a building, every time we kill someone in Iraq that person has friends and relatives who now hate America, and there is a fantastic recruiting environment to take these people and turn them into terrorists.
Third, even if 90% of the terrorists in the world are in Iraq, (a ridiculous assumption), it doesn’t take that many terrorists to hurt the US. Are you saying that every last terrorist will go to Iraq, not even leaving six or eight behind who would like to strike America? That was all it took for 9/11.
Fourth, Osama bin laden is not in Iraq. He is not concerned with Iraq. He wants to destroy the economy of the US. To do that, he is not going to send his terror network (remember them? Al queda? absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein?) to Iraq, he is going to attack the US directly. Osama bin laden is a religious fundamentalist who wants to get rid of secular government in the middle east so that religious theocracies can emerge. He attacks the US because he sees us as propping up those regimes. (note, I’m not excusing OBL, or saying we need to change our foreign policy in regard to what he says, I’m just pointing out what he says).
In this regard, we did OBL a huge favor by eliminating the most powerful secular government in the middle east and replacing it with chaos in which the fundamental religous leaders are gaining an increasingly prominent role. Nice going, US!
Fourth, the argument is ridiculous on its face. Ask Israel how safe they feel now that all the terrorists have been drawn to Iraq.
Fifth, terror does not need a state sponser. Terror is cheap. Ask the perpetrators of the Oklahoma city bombing if you need a state sponsor. The only thing terror needs is hate, usually fostered by poverty and a feeling of displacement. I’m sure that we have created plenty of both in our war in Iraq.

I am actually happy that Bush one for one reason only—so that I can make my arguments without the only comeback from the conservatives being that Kerry would have been horrible. Kerry’s gone, now defend this ridiculous war on its merits.

The objective is to make the whole world safter by eliminating terrorists. It does not matter if they were there already or came to IRAQ. They are still terrorists that hate Freedom, Equality, and the Inalienable Human rights that all people should have.

Of course that won’t necessarily keep us safer
here in the US ( yet ), but in time, it will.
It only stands to reason…when they are mostly
all defeated, the world will be safer.

I seriously wonder about people that demonize
our troops and Bush for fighting terrorism and
trying to help the IRAQI people.

Even if our efforts fail in IRAQ, that does
not mean it wasn’t a just and honorable
endeavor.

So, that’s what we are doing…our US troops are eliminating terrorists and fanatical intolerant crazy hateful nut cases. Our US troops deserve our praise and thanks.

The terrorists are like mad dogs with rabies. You can’t cure them…you can only put them out of their misery. It is a war on terror. There are terrorists in IRAQ and they need to be eliminated too. They need to be eliminated everywhere….in due time. Yes, it’s hard and grueling and distasteful, but it’s necessary and it’s that simple. I don’t agree with all of Bush’s policies, but fighting terrorists, whereever they are, is one that I strongly agree with.

And Usama Bin Laden will get his eventually.
He’s hiding under a rock somewhere, but he
will someday be caught (probably ratted out on
by one of his low-life associates).

Daniel,
You didn’t adress a single one of my arguments. The whole point is that there is not a finite amount of terrorist and we can kill them all and be done. Every innocent person we kill (regardless of our noble motives, having your father or child killed as “collateral damage” is a good incentive to try to hurt those who did it) encourages more people to try to hurt us through terrorism. I’m not saying we should stop killing terrorists, just that conventional warfare against nation-states is not the way to do it. It may be part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution, and when we excercise that option, we had better make sure we have the ability to give the people in the country a better life afterwards. About what you said:
I’m glad you see that the war in Iraq will not keep us safer. I think it will make us more vulnerable, not safer in the long run. See my post above about not being able to kill all of the terrorists, new recruitment, and the few numbers it takes to do us real harm
I’m not demonizing our troops. I’m angry at people who ignore or want to supress their sacrifice for political gain. Our troops are carrying out their orders wonderfully. The fact that the higher-ups don’t have a clue is not the troops fault.
How is killing over 10000 people who never did anything to us in a war that gains us nothing, a war that was embarked upon on false pretenses, make it a “Just and honorable effort?”
I repeat: I am not saying we should not fight terrorism. Terrorism, however, is not Iraq. Your characterization of terrorists, while it feels good emotionally, is inacurate. They are not blindly attacking us because they hate freedom. They have their reasons, and they make enough sense to them to die for them. I hate terrorists, but just trying to blindly kill them all is not going to work because there are hundreds more to take their place. We need good intelligence to target the right people. We need good border and shipping security. We need international cooperation. We need a host of things, all of which the current war is making more difficult. The necessity of fighting terrorism has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.
Don’t feed me platitudes about how its “hard work” without backing up why we should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

pooleb —

Actually, if you think about it what’s in OBl’s best interest, if he’s trying to destroy the American economy, is to draw the United States into a war on many fronts. Given the fact that Bush eagerly leaped to war with Iraq while still involved in Afghanistan, and that he has made aggressive noises toward other nations in the “Axis of Evil,” it would appear that Bush is either playing directly into OBL’s hands or wants exactly the same thing OBL wants: A war between Islam and Christianity.

Daniel,

“The terrorists are like mad dogs with rabies. You can’t cure them…you can only put them out of their misery. It is a war on terror. There are terrorists in IRAQ and they need to be eliminated too. They need to be eliminated everywhere….in due time. Yes, it’s hard and grueling and distasteful, but it’s necessary and it’s that simple.”

Nothing is that simple. Our armies and the armies of the world will be on this “Crusade” for our lifetime and our childrens lifetimes.

Will we bankrupt the world fighting an ideology?

Alejo,
I think its a little of both. He wasn’t smart/prepared/thoughtful enough to see that he is doing just what OBL wants, and he wanted a well-known enemy to fight to prove he’s a war president. Notice he’s agressively pursuing war with Iraq, threatening it with Iran, but doing nothing against North Korea. Are they less dangerous or just less Muslim? I honestly don’t think he wants a religious war (O please I hope not), but I think that it kind of enters into his policy subconsciously.
How much do you think he’s encouraging terrorism when he defends his job record by saying that 1,000,000 jobs were lost because of Sept. 11? Makes our economy look like a pretty easy target, doesn’t it?

Ofcourse, we should fight the war as smartly
as possible.

However, when US troops are attacked and fight
back, civilians sometimes get hurt.

That’s truly unfortunate…..but why the hell
blame the US troops ???

The terrorists are to blame !

Americans don’t want to hurt IRAQI civilians,
and go to great lengths to do so (even when it
increases the risk to themselves).

It’s simply disgraceful to demonize the US troops,
and demonize the efforts to liberate IRAQ.

You have to realize that it’s not
possible to reason with some of the hate-mongers
who see the US as the enemy and blame the US always,
and do nothing to help identify the terrorists, and
never blame the terrorists.

A big part of the problem is the
deep-rooted US hating mind-set of many people
in the middle east. I used to live in IRAN.
The lies about the US are rampant.
The lies and hatred of the Israelis is rampant.
I’ve been to over 24 foreign countries,
and so many people in those countries want
to live in the US and aspire to be like the US !
So, what’s up with that ?

Because they really see the US as a beacon
of Freedom and Human Rights.
It’s a big lie when some say the
majority of the world hates the US.

Some Americans are too quick to get rattled when
a few people in other countries get upset or
disagree with the US ( like Chirac ).

To hell with Chirac and the most of the UN.
Many of them were stealing from the
“Oil for Food” program. The UN is a useless
debating society. It’s all too clear now why the
French, Russians, Chinese, and Germans wanted to
let Saddam stay in power.

The US has done many good things around the
planet for centuries and it’s not true when
people say that the majority of people hate
the US.
If that were so, why are there 90 nations
aligned with the US on the war on terrorism ?

Some one said, why not deal with Korea and Iran ?
Well, neither of those countries have attacked
their neighboring countries. They are behaving just
within tolerable limits at the moment.
However, if IRAN, N. Korea, or any other country
or organization mess with the US, I hope they are
harshly dealt with like Saddam and Alqaeda.
And Usama Bin Laden’s days are numbered.
UBL is dead-man-walking.

Unfortunately, the hate mongers and squeaky wheels
are heard most of the time; more so than the calmer
and cooler headed US population.
However, as demonstrated during this last election,
99% of the polls and liberal media showed Kerry ahead,
but the final popular vote was 51% Bush to 48% Kerry.

I think America got it right (not perfect) this time.

Daniel,
I never once blamed the US troops. I blame Bush, clear and simple. I never said that the world hates us. It is true that it is much less likely that we will get any kind of aid from the rest of the world in the war on terror because of the boorish policies and attitude of the Bush administration, and I think that that is a bad thing. I don’t think we need to reason with the terrorists, but I think that indiscriminately killing everyone or nation we think looks at us funny is going to do more harm than good. I think that the iraq war has done more to diminish the view of America as a beacon of hope and liberty than anything else in recent memory. I wish it were possible to line the terrorists up, shoot them all, and be done with it. I wish it were possible to do this all ourselves, but it isn’t.
PS. you still haven’t answered any of my objections about Iraq.

Daniel,
You still haven’t answered any of my objections about Iraq, and continuing to spout jingoistic platitudes about how I hate the military and want to reason with terrorists is not going to make your case. I will ask you one simple question: Why did we go to Iraq?

Daniel,

“The US has done many good things around the
planet for centuries and it’s not true when
people say that the majority of people hate
the US.
If that were so, why are there 90 nations
aligned with the US on the war on terrorism?”

Which countries would those be Daniel? Have you read any of the newspapers from other parts of the world?

By doing good around the world, would that include overthrowing governments that weren’t in our best interests?
Guatamala in the 50’s? Chile in the 60’s?

The US only started doing good around the world since the 1900’s and usually only when it was in our “best interests”.

Platitudes Shmatitudes.

I think I’ve answered most of those questions.
What are we supposed to do ? Nothing ?
Just let the people of IRAQ continue to be
oppressed and murdered by the millions by
Saddam and his loyalists ? Some people
thought much the same way when Hitler
invaded his neighboring countries.

I wish we didn’t have to be the world police.
We’re not completely alone though.
There are 90 nations aligned with this cause.
That’s significant, even if the numbers of
troops they have are dwarfed by that of the US.
Russia, China, France, and Germany have
considerable resources, but they preferred to
steal from the “Oil for Food Program” and
refused to help. Their motives are all too
clear now.

Again, when our troops are attacked,
they fight back.

Sometimes, and it is very sad and unfortunate,
civilians are killed or injured, but the
terrorists are to blame. It’s unavoidable.

I believe our troops try hard to avoid harming
innocent civilians (even at their own risk).

But, it’s a war zone, and remember that many
of these people are harboring terrorists and
not revealing the locations of the terrorists
amongst them, and unwisely also staying in the
same vicinities of the terrorists, foolishly
endangering themselves and their families.

So, I still assert that the blame
lies with the terrorists and those that harbor
them. The terrorists must be eliminated or
reduced to a level that the IRAQI police and
military can deal with them themselves.

It’s a nasty job, but it has to be done.
This is not a religious war, as some try to
portray it. It’s simply a war against
murderous terrorists.

It’s a war against people that don’t have a
clue about the meaning of freedom for all and
inalienable human rights.

These intolerant people treat their women
terribly, oppress their people, and want to
keep it that way. Their time is over.

We have to keep up the fight always, to fight
for freedom and human rights for all.
It’s a war that will never be over.
There will always be a struggle of good and evil.
But, I think things have improved in the last
2000 years. Slavery is illegal in all nations,
human rights are being fought for all over,
religious freedom, rights to free speech are
being fought for in China and other nations.
I think there’s some cause for optimism.

The time is past when we can ignore these
evil dictators forever and look the other way. This should be a warning to all dictators….
if they mistreat their people, they risk
being brought down.

I think most Americans felt Bush understood
this, and just were not convinced that Kerry
really would fight the terrorists that have
already had too long to grow too numerous.

And it’s not just fear mongering to say they
are a threat. The terrorist killed more
in New York City on 9/11/2001 than
Pearl Harbor 12/7/1941 .

Now….for those that choose to complicate
what is really a simple matter….consider
the following joke. It contains an important
message (by the way, I live in Texas):
_________________________________
Subject: Democrat, Republican, or Texan?

You’re walking down a deserted street with your
spouse and two small children. Suddenly, a
dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes
around the corner and locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises his knife, and charges. You’re carrying a Smith &Wesson and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Dumicrat’s Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the gun have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with
just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Republican’s Answer:
BANG!

Texan’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click…click…click
_________________________________

SO you still did’t answer the question.
What 90 countries are you talking about?

I don’t know all 90, but here’s a few:

IRAQ,
Afghanistan,
Britain,
Australia,
Japan,
Columbia,
Spain

If you want to know more, research it yourself.

Daniel, I’m tired, but I’ll try one more time. Here is a list of the points you haven’t answered:
1. There are not a finite amount of terrorists
2. even if we have good intentions, by killing Iraqis we generate ant-american hatred and increase terrorist recruiting
3. It doesn’t take a lot of terrorists or funds to harm the US, so the idea that we are going to beatthem all in Iraq is ludicrous
4. attacking Iraq does nothing about OBL, except get him what he wants.
5. My very clear last question: why did we go to Iraq?

Again,(for the fourth time) I am not against our troops. I fully expect them to shoot back and protect themselves. I resent the administration that put them in a position where protecting themselves undermines the mission they were sent there to do. If we weren’t there, we wouldn’t be getting shot at, and there is no need for them to be there. See, not the troop’s fault. Bush’s Fault. Your ranting about how the rest of the world is corrupt doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion, except allowing me to say one thing on the topic of corruption: Halliburton!
In your post: I guess you mean that we should take out all dictators. That wasn’t the reason Bush gave for going to war. Why haven’t we taken out Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? North Korea?Why haven’t we stepped in in Africa? We don’t have the resources to conquer the world, and we need to put our own safety first.
To apply your “joke” to real life, the republican would have shot, nicked the guy, chased him for a few feet, turned into the nearest house and blown away the family, while saying “they would have been after me one day, better I get them now”, then felt smug about how he dealt with the first guy, not seeing him sneak up behind him with three friends. And when the texan was out of bullets after hosing down the street,(classic overcommiting of the military in the wrong place) he would have been mugged.
If you think you have answered my arguements, maybe I’m just too much of a “dumicrat” to realize it, and you could organize your responses into nice little points instead of a long, rambling tirade.

Daniel,
I thought it was really funny (in a really sad way) when Cheney started berating Edwards for not counting Iraq as one of our allies. Since we are fighting Iraqis, does that make them simultaneously our allies and our enemies? How does that even work? I don’t think you can count the governments you’ve installed in countries you conquer as allies against said country. Same thing for Afganistan. How many troops do they have in Iraq? Spain withdrew. So, out of 7 countries (not 90) you name, 4 are left. I don’t think either Japan or Columbia sent a significant number of troops. If you are saying the countries that were with us before we invaded Iraq, I think 90 might be a good number. However, sadly, That number is considerably decreased, and those are the countries that like us, not the countries that are supporting our war effort in any meaninful way.

Pooleb,
Here’s your answers:

1. There are not a finite amount of terrorists
ANSWER: doesn’t matter; eliminate them
whenever and whereever you find them.
2. even if we have good intentions, by killing Iraqis we generate ant-american hatred and increase terrorist recruiting
ANSWER: The US doesn’t murder IRAQIs.
Collateral damage is the fault of the
terrorists. If they fire on US troops,
they endanger themselves and civilians.
Should we just let them shoot at us and
let them continue to oppress the IRAQI
people, like Saddam and his loyalists did
for decades ?
3. It doesn’t take a lot of terrorists or funds to harm the US, so the idea that we are going to beatthem all in Iraq is ludicrous
ANSWER: We will beat them all. That’s the
only choice we have. And if more rise up,
we will beat them too. It’s a non-ending
battle of good and evil. It won’t be over
until there’s no more evil.
4. attacking Iraq does nothing about OBL, except get him what he wants.
ANSWER: UBL is dead-man-walking.
So he’s got a good hiding place.
He won’t hide forever. His days are
numbered. Watch….I’ll bet one of his
own turns him in eventually.
5. My very clear last question: why did we go to Iraq?
ANSWER: Because Saddam brutaluized his
people, murdered millions, used gas to
kill thousands of Kurds, attacked IRAN,
and Israel, and Kuwait, and was shooting at
our planes in the no-fly zone. Also, he
clearly was a maniac and there were
undeniable links between Alqaeda and Saddam.
Saddam and all like him need to be
brought down. No one should be allowed
to murder and torture their people.
And how about Saddam’s sons ?
I could go on and on, but that should be
enough.

Daniel,
At this link you will find a list of the “Coalition of the Willing” as of 3/21/03

http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/03/21-coalitionlist.html

The named list has 45 countries on it. Of those countries I belive that at least 15 have pulled out.
Not quite 90.

Thanks Rocky,
I’ll list them if it’s OK.
Not quite 90, but still quite a few.
You know Bush…he probably meant to say 45,
but said 90.

The open list of the coalition countries:
____________
United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.

Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.

Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.

Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.

Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.

Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.

Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.

Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.

Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.

Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.

Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan’s post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.

South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.

Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.

Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.

Hungary - providing political support.

Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.

Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.

Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.

Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.

Slovakia - providing political support.

Macedonia - providing political support.

Azerbaijan - providing political support.

Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.

Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/

Philippines - political and moral support.

Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.

Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.

El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any

U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.

Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.

Dominican Republic - providing political support.

Costa Rica - providing political support.

Honduras - political and moral support.

Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).

Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).

Rwanda - providing political support.

Uganda - providing political support.

Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.

Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.

Mongolia - providing political support.

Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.

Micronesia - providing political support.

Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.

Palau - providing political support.

Panama - providing political support.

Unnamed countries which may be on the expanded list of the coalition include:

Bahrain - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which agreed to help provide for the defence of Kuwait in the event of a new war with Iraq.

Oman - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.

Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refuelling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars, and is a member of the GCC.

Saudi Arabia - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
United Arab Emirates - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.

Jordan - U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.

Belgium - Allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.

Croatia - Allowing refuelling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.

Egypt - Keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to gulf.

Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defence agreements, but will not send troops.

Germany - Ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to
U.S. and British bases in Germany.

Cyprus - degree of support unknown.

Israel - the main US ally in the Middle East.

Daniel,
1. my whole argument is that if you eliminate them using the methods we are currently using, more just come up. Do you want to nuke the whole world? from your rhetoric it sounds like it.
2. I don’t care what your definition of murder is. When Iraqis see their homes and families blown apart because we have to defend ourselves in a situation WE initiated, they will still blame us. It doesn’t matter to them what our intentions are, what matters is that their family is dead, and America did it. There is also a difference between an insurgent and a terrorist. Everybody who shoots at our troops in Iraq is not a terrorist. Terrorists attack civillians to bring terror to a country. The insurgents in Iraq are fighting off what they see as a hostile occupying force, and trying to establish the government that they want. I hope they fail, but to blanketly label them all as mad dog terrorists is wrong, and dangerous because you don’t understand what is really going on.
3.Saying we will beat them all doesn’t make it happen. How are we going to beat them all? Not even 6 will be left? especially when our forces are all in Iraq?
4. Your determination to get OBL doesn’t mean he’s not still dangerous, or that we aren’t doing exactly what he wants us to do. Even if we get him, I mostly used him as an example that really, all the terrorists are not flocking to Iraq.
5. yes, Saddam was a bad guy. We need to take care of ourselves first, though. The appropriate time to eliminate Saddam would have been back when he actually gassed his own people, during the Reagan administration, instead of sending Rumsfeld to tell him that we weren’t really mad at him. Or, maybe during the first gulf war, when we actually had a coalition and a mandate to do so, instead of abandoning the Kurds who fought for us. During a time when we need our resources to fight terrorism, diverting them to Iraq is not appropriate. I admit that the humanitarian thing is a pretty good argument, but I think that our national security should come first, especially when the war was presented on those grounds (remember-mushroom clouds and anthrax vials?)

Pooleb, see responses below:

1. my whole argument is that if you eliminate them using the methods we are currently using, more just come up. Do you want to nuke the whole world? from your rhetoric it sounds like it.

RESPONSE1: Can’t nuke ‘em. That would
kill too many innocent people.

2. I don’t care what your definition of murder is. When Iraqis see their homes and families blown apart because we have to defend ourselves in a situation WE initiated, they will still blame us. It doesn’t matter to them what our intentions are, what matters is that their family is dead, and America did it. There is also a difference between an insurgent and a terrorist. Everybody who shoots at our troops in Iraq is not a terrorist. Terrorists attack civillians to bring terror to a country. The insurgents in Iraq are fighting off what they see as a hostile occupying force, and trying to establish the government that they want. I hope they fail, but to blanketly label them all as mad dog terrorists is wrong, and dangerous because you don’t understand what is really going on.

RESPONSE2: We can’t remove the terrorists
if we are there. If we are there
they will shoot at us. If we
leave now, the terrorist will
return the country to its
previously oppressed state.
Elections are coming up….
you’ll see ( as in Afghanistan )
that many (if not most) prefer
the new democracy to the
previous dictatorship.
How would we have ever beat
Hitler without putting troops
on the ground ? Should we
have allowed him to continue
to murder and incinerate Jews ?

3.Saying we will beat them all doesn’t make it happen. How are we going to beat them all? Not even 6 will be left? especially when our forces are all in Iraq?

RESPONSE3: We have millions of troops and
many more enlisting all the
time…there are many Americans
that have and will fight for freedom
and human rights; they deserve our
utmost praise and admiration.
4. Your determination to get OBL doesn’t mean he’s not still dangerous, or that we aren’t doing exactly what he wants us to do. Even if we get him, I mostly used him as an example that really, all the terrorists are not flocking to Iraq.

RESPONSE4: Sure he’s dangerous.
But he’s hiding in Pakistan and
Pakistan has nukes. If you want
a nuclear war, invade Pakistan
to find one guy (UBL)….not wise.

5. yes, Saddam was a bad guy. We need to take care of ourselves first, though. The appropriate time to eliminate Saddam would have been back when he actually gassed his own people, during the Reagan administration, instead of sending Rumsfeld to tell him that we weren’t really mad at him. Or, maybe during the first gulf war, when we actually had a coalition and a mandate to do so, instead of abandoning the Kurds who fought for us. During a time when we need our resources to fight terrorism, diverting them to Iraq is not appropriate. I admit that the humanitarian thing is a pretty good argument, but I think that our national security should come first, especially when the war was presented on those grounds (remember-mushroom clouds and anthrax vials?)

RESPONSE5: Yes, Saddam should have been
removed earlier…when Saddam invaded
Kuwait. There’s still a lot of
activity in Afghanistan, and UBL isn’t
there anymore…he’s hiding in the
mountains of Pakistan (see RESPONSE4)

I hear all of your points, and many others,
but am still not swayed by any of them.
That’s one thing I like about Bush.
He’s not wishy washy and doesn’t get
wobbly when the going gets tough.
The assertions that it’s all able
the oil don’t fly. We never got that much
oil from IRAQ anyway, and IRAQI oil is not
of the highest quality (i.e. not sweet crude).

So Daniel, did you actually read the list?

Out of the original 45 named countries 30 gave only moral or political support or only allowed the US to use their bases.

Since March 2003 we have lost,
Spain
The Phillipines
Czech Republic
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Honduras
Netherlands
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Thailand

Pretty soon we will be calling on our good friends in Luxumborg, Lichtenstein and Freedonia,
to support us on our quest to annililate the insurgents in Iraq.

You made a remark earlier that this isn’t a religous war. I hate to inform you that it is to them. We are fighting an ideology that we haven’t taken the time to try and understand. The war isn’t going to be any easier until we do.

Rocky,

You are correct. Is a religious war to
many of these terrorists.
Guess that sort of thing has been going on
for thousands of years. Sad.

I’m not sure though we should waste much
time trying to understand them, unless it
will help eliminate them faster.

These terrorists are like mad dogs with rabies.
You can’t cure them, or understand them, or
reason with them.

You can only put them out of their misery.

Daniel,
perhaps you refuse to understand that there are millions of potential terrorists out there. There is no way in hell we are going to “kill them all”, nor should we want to.
We cannot bankrupt the world on some fanciful chase for international terrorists. This is a fools mission.
I am not critisizing the effort of our troops. The drive to Bhagdad was unbelivable but it should have been. We have the dominant military on the planet technologicly. however we left out some of the security needs of the people of Iraq in our rush to get Saddam. The looting that took place was unexceptable. It points to only one of the many flaws in the administrations approach to the planing of the war in Iraq.
We thought, when we went in there that we had the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.
Now it would appear that we were hasty in that ascessment.
If this is the way Bush is going to run the rest of the war on terror we will have no allies left,
and it will result in a civil war here at home.

Rocky,

There’s still a lot of nations that
agree with the cause.
Of course, few have the resource of the US.

Many of those countries that
dropped out ( like Spain )
is because they became afraid.
That will only embolden the terrorists.

If we don’t deal with dictators like
Saddam, allow them to link up with terrorists,
and allow them to harbor terrorists
(like what was happening in Afghanistan),
then the job will get harder.

Clinton should have dealt with UBL and IRAQ
when he had the chance and support of the UN,
but Clinton always left the hard decisions
to someone else and Clinton often took the
easy way out.

It seems only logical to take down these
terrorists and dictators when the first
good opportunity arises.

As for IRAN and N.Korea, they’re not
over the line yet, but they’d better be
careful. Not even China wants a nutcase
with nukes loose near their borders.
And we shouldn’t invade Pakistan to find
UBL , since Pakistan is showing a substantial
effort to find him too. Those mountains
are vast and rugged. You could send 5 divisions
in there and still never find where UBL is
hiding. But, UBL will slip up eventually.

Regarding the IRAQI insurgents…most of those
terrorists are in specific small regions.
Most of IRAQ is
under control and improving day-by-day.
The civilians in Faluja and near the terrorists
need to find refuge somewhere else and get
far away from the terrorists (which they know
are amongst them).

Rocky Wrote: (see responses below)

Daniel,
perhaps you refuse to understand that there are millions of potential terrorists out there. There is no way in hell we are going to “kill them all”, nor should we want to.

RESPONSE1: We have to pace ourselves,
we can’t take everyone on
simultaneously, but we have to
keep trying always to eliminate
them or discourage them from
committing more crimes.
This is not a fight will end
for a long long time, but it
still need to be done; otherwise,
they will attack us again and
again. We must do all we can
(within practical limits) to
eliminate these rabid mad dogs.

We cannot bankrupt the world on some fanciful chase for international terrorists. This is a fools mission.

RESPONSE2: It’s not a fools mission.
It’s a necessity.
We won’t bankrupt the world.
The world has thousands of
times more money and resources
than what is really required
to eliminate the terrorists.
Unfortunately, some are helping
as much as they should.
Besides, the alternative is
worse….let dictators threaten
the world and oppress their
people ?
Still, there’s ample money and
resources and people around the
world that want to fight
for and preserve their own
freedom, and for others too.

I am not critisizing the effort of our troops.
The drive to Bhagdad was unbelivable but it should have been. We have the dominant military on the planet technologicly. however we left out some of the security needs of the people of Iraq in our rush to get Saddam. The looting that took place was unexceptable. It points to only one of the many flaws in the administrations approach to the planing of the war in Iraq.
We thought, when we went in there that we had the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.
Now it would appear that we were hasty in that ascessment.
If this is the way Bush is going to run the rest of the war on terror we will have no allies left,
and it will result in a civil war here at home.

RESPONSE3: We’re no where close to
civil war. People are unhappy
like in the 2000 election, but
they’ll get over it, and realize
they need to bring change about
in a civilized manner. One way
to do that is to vote for the
candidate of their choice.
We didn’t have great choices,
but still, I just couldn’t bring
myself to vote for Kerry (who
was just too wishy washy and
gloom and doom) and Edwards (who
is just a typical greedy
ambulance chasing lawyer).
I think Kerry could have won if
he had simply made a better
choice for his VP. Edwards
didn’t even bring in his own
state of North Carolina.

______________________________________-
OK…got to go, but here’s a good joke:

Intelligent Riddle

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, “Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?”

“Well,” says the Queen, “the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people.”

Kerry frowns. “But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?”

The Queen takes a sip of tea. “Oh, that’s easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle.” The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. “Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?”

Tony Blair walks into the room. “Yes, my Queen?” The Queen smiles. “Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?”

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, “That would be me.”

“Yes! Very good,” says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice the same question.

“John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?”

“I’m not sure,” says John Edwards. “Let me get back to you on that one.” Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men’s room and recognizes Colin Powell’s shoes in the next stall. Edwards shouts, “Colin! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?” Colin Powell yells back, “That’s easy. It’s me!”

Edwards smiles, and says, “Thanks!” Then, Edwards goes back to speak with Kerry. “Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s Colin Powell.”

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and angrily yells into his face, “No, you idiot! It’s Tony Blair!”

Daniel,
if the Queen actually ran the government of England, the joke would be only moderately humorus.
Apparantly you have bought the neo-con line. The information that you keep repeating is straight out of Rush and Hannity, it doesn’t make any sense when they say it and it surely doesn’t make any more sense when you repeat it.
If we, as you insist, attempt to kill all of the “terrorists” it won’t happen. There isn’t enough money in the solar system to do what you think is nescessary.
So I will leave you with your delusional thoughts. Good Luck.

Rocky,
Of course the queen doesn’t run the country.
Surely you can recognize a joke ?
You have no sense of humor at all.
Lighten up, and open your mind.

You don’t know what’s possible or impossible.

Your not the authority on terrorism.

There’s plenty of money and will to defeat
terrorism. The terrorists do not out number
the non-terrorists, peace loving,
democratic minded people of the planet.

I guess if it were up to you,
you’d do nothing ?

Well, you may choose to do nothing if you want,
but some of us want to fight terrorism. Why does that bother you so much?

If any one is delusional, defeatist, and
doom and gloom, it is you.

So Daniel,
in 52 years on this planet it’s pretty obvious that I have no experiences. Never been any where, never done any thing.

Please, Daniel, please share with me your wealth of experience, your expertise on terrorism.

BTW, being a terrorist costs next to nothing.

Rocky,

Obviously, you haven’t learned enough in your 52 years. You want to just give up. That’s
defeatist. Tell that to the survivors of the
victims of 9/11. Tell them you’re not going to
bust up Alqaeda, because it’s too hard or too
risky. Fortunately, we have a President and
leaders that aren’t so pacifist. There’s nothing
wrong with trying to defeat terrorists.
There is plenty of money to do it.
It’s not impossible (as you say).
Just watch and observe.
Elections will soon be taking place in
IRAQ. Children are returning to school.
Electricity is being restored. Medicine and
food are being provided. Stores are opening up
everywhere. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but
it’s much better than you seem to portray it.
I’ve spoken with many in the military.
They don’t want to cut and run, as you’d
probably have them do. They’re not cowards.
They believe in the cause, and so do I.
Why do you want to believe the US and Bush
are evil ? Do you really thing that ?
Why constantly tear down the US ?

And being a terrorist can be quite costly.
It can cost some one their life
(preferably just their own sorry life).

You’ll see. The terrorists will lose,
and the IRAQI people will be free (if they
choose). And even if it fails, that does
not mean it was not a noble cause.

I’m not sure what you mean by neo-con
I’m not keen on dumb labels.

As for my experiences, they have been sufficient
to allow me to see things the way they really.
I lived in IRAN and have been to the middle east,
and 24 countries. While there is much hatred
and intolerance, not all of those people hate
the US or support terrorists. If they did, we
wouldn’t be simply trying to liberate IRAQ…
we would be having World War 3 .

Lighten up some, laugh at a joke once in a while,
and try to be more optimistic. There’s no
advantage to such gloom and doom, and a beleif
that there’s nothing that can be done about
terrorism, and such hatred for Bush. If you
want to point that hatred at something that
deserves it, vent it on the terrorists.

Daniel,
you sound young, really young. Have I given up, far from it. This country has had a lot of great leaders. Bush isn’t one of them. Kerry would not have been much better.
I have been around the world. I’ve had a beer or two with the common folks, their no different than we are.
You don’t understand anything about terrorism. It’s obvious from the way you write.
These guys are not common soldiers. They live for their ideology. They don’t care if they give up their lives. They live their lives for Allah. Thats why it doesn’t cost much to be a terrorist. Thats the difference between them and us. We value life too much.
While they are fighting a guerrilla battle, we’re fiddle farting around. They don’t care how many people they lose because we are doing their recruiting for them.
You can’t fight their ideology with bullets, because they don’t care about human life. This for them is about the survival of their culture.
Calling them rabid dogs may make you feel better but in the end it does’t make a bit of difference.
Lighten up? I’m deadly serious. Until Bush figures this out for himself, we’re in for a long, long ride.

How many times higher is the life of one American over the live of one of ‘them’ ?

Is the value of a human life proportionally worth the size of his wallet ?

Phil,
maybe I don’t understand the question.

I suppose it would be determined by who was doing the counting. The question is kind of obtuse.
A human life is a human life. None is worth more than another.
I said we value human life more because while our soldiers are busy trying not to hit civillians. their guys are cutting them and us to pieces.

(The questions were not aimed at you Rocky, I wish everyone to think about this.)

911, 3,000 deaths, the whole word unite in solidarity and firmly condemn terrorism.

Iraq, more than 100,000 deaths, half (?) the USA population thinks its worth it.

And we are still wondering why do they hate us. Some extremists amongst us are even pretending that terrorists (what define a terrorist, BTW ?) are animals that just hate our freedom and our democracy.

Ideally, a human life is a human life. In fact, sometimes a death is a drama, sometimes its just ‘things that happen’. Thus my questions.

Why is it that most American are outraged when they see their boys returning in body bags after doing their duty (which imply the accepted risk of having to kill or to be killed), and at the same time they believe that ‘other’ deaths are inevitable or even needed ‘collateral damage’ ?

How is it that we can organize some prestigious commemoration for, eg Ronald Reagan (who had a lot of blood on his hands), and accept to see a region being cleaned from its ‘insignifiant’ people (and eventually spoilled of their resources) without any remorse ?

Rocky,

48 is not that young.
The way I write is as foreign to you
as yours is to me.

The US (generally speaking, which isn’t perfect)
doesn’t create terrorists. intolerance, hate,
ignorance, and religious fanaticism.

That’s not the fault of the U.S.

Some of the terrorists’ hatred is taught at
a young age.

It’s brain washing.

And, it is perpetuated and passed down from
generation to generation.

That’s all you need to know.
They really are like mad dogs
with rabies for which there is no cure.
One thing they do understand and might have
a chance of discouraging the terrorists is
force.

Trying to understand every little minute
intricate detail of what makes them tick
is a waste of time, UNLESS it will help
eliminate them faster.

I hear a lot of crap all the time that the
U.S. is creating terrorists. That is
truly ridiculous.

The war against terror doesn’t create more
terrorists. They were terrorists ALREADY.
We don’t have time to rehabilitate terrorists.
They are probably irreversibly brain washed.

However, note…most people in those regions
and around the world choose to NOT be
terrorists.

Regarding collateral damage.
No collateral damage is needed or inevitable
or ever acceptable. But the U.S. is not to
blame for that.

The terrorists are to blame, and those that
aid and harbor them are to blame. Most IRAQI
people want to be rid of the terrorists also.

It makes no sense to do as some say and
do nothing to fight terrorism, or try to
understand them, or whatever.
You can’t reason with them.
You can’t change them.
They are blind with hate.
Yes, they will die for their cause (foolishly).

Regarding the Americans and coallition troops
that are fighting the terrorists….
I place MUCH more importance
on the life of someone fighting terrorism than
that of a terrorist. The terrorists are a
cancer, and need to be eliminated or imprisoned.

The majority of the world knows that and wants
that. To continue to assert otherwise is
nonsense. Turning the other cheek won’t stop
terrorists, who mostly murder innocent people.

Where’s the outrage against the terrorists ?

I wish the bleeding heart pacifists would spend
one tenth their effort and criticism of the
U.S. and coallition troops on those that really
deserve it …. which is the terrorists .

Rocky,

You say “We value life too much.”
That’s truly an absurd thing to say.

You say about the terrorists:
“they’re not common soldiers”.
That’s obvious. You’re not saying anything
we don’t already know.
Of course they’re willing to die for their
cause. And so are we. Americans and coallition
troops will fight these terrorists, and the
terrorists will lose, and democracy and freedom
will prevail. To hope for any less is
defeatist doom and gloom.

You say “Bush” is not great, but
“Kerry” would be much better ?

Most Americans and I seriously doubt that.
Kerry is way too wishy-washy and flip-floppy.
Why ? Because he can’t take a firm stand on
anything. Enough people see that.
And Edwards is an ambulance chaser.
He got rich in court from his cut of awards
to his clients, and some of it was based on
pretty flimsy junk science.
That’s sleazy. and it’s bankrupting
doctors, hospitals, and people in society that
provide a net benefit to society ( unlike many
personal injury lawyers that are often
parasites that profit from others’ misery and
chaos, and for the most part provide no net
benefit to society ).

Also, I take a pretty dim and cynical view of
most politicians. Kerry is your stereotypical
career do-nothing flip-flop elitist
master parasite politician.

Bush isn’t perfect, but he’s
substantially better than Kerry, and time
will prove it. Kerry had 20 years, and he
already proved himself by his track record.
He was voted to be most liberal, tax-and-spend,
flip-flopper in Congress.

A warning to all, though.
Do not place either Bush or Kerry or anyone
on too high a pedastal, because people sometimes
screw up ( like Clinton and Nixon ). And
when they do, they will be held responsible.

Even though Kerry lost this election, there is a major significance in the victories he did win.

The states/regions that were directly affected by 9/11 — New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, DC, and Northern Virginia — were states Kerry won mostly by a comfortable margin.

So did these states, who lived through 9/11 first-hand, vote for someone who would—as Bush claimed—make America weaker? Who doesn’t understand how to fight a war on terror? Who doesn’t understand the complexities of the larger, strategic, more intelligent way to combat terrorism’s root causes? I don’t think so. To me it showed that these people who were attacked knew that going into Iraq was a complete distraction from global counterterrorism and they didn’t want troops to die in their name fighting a war we didn’t have to fight.

Not sure about that……

If you zoom in on most states, you will see
that Kerry won in many major cities and highly
populated areas all over the United States.
Even in Texas.

However, the majority of the rural areas are
RED (Republican).

The real significance is not just the states.
It’s the rural versus highly populated areas.

The real question is why are inner cities and
southern U.S. border areas BLUE (Democrat),
and most rural areas RED (Republican) ?

Some say people in the cities know better
how to live closely amongst others.
I don’t buy that argument, and don’t see
how that’s really even relevant.

Most people would probably prefer to
move to a less crowded, less populated
area if they could.

There’s probably more than one
reason, but I think people in the cities and
along the southern U.S. borders look to
government to control more and give more.

People in rural America look less to the
government to give them things and prefer
less government intervention and control.

Historically, Democrats promise more
entitlements, health care, etc.
That’s mostly why cities and southern U.S. borders vote mostly Democratic.

Rural Americans don’t care as much about those
things. They see themselves (whether it’s true
or not) as being more self sufficient and
prefer less government, less taxes, and less
government intervention. Rural Americans mostly
just want government to defend the nation as
a whole, and believe more strongly in a strong
national defense.

Some say it’s a matter of intelligence.
That’s silly to think people in cities are
more intelligent than people in rural areas.

Some say it’s religion.
That’s silly to, because religious Americans
are found ALL over and of many different faiths.

Some say it’s education.
That doesn’t make sense either. Education
in the cities and rural areas so different to
prove that point.

Thus, I think it really boils down to a
difference in opinion about what the role of
government should be, and the reason peoples’
opinion differs is because:

(1) Most rural Americans see themselves as
being more self sufficient and desire
less government intervention.

(2) And, most Americans in the cities and along
southern U.S. borders want more government
intervention and entitlements.

There’s nothing terrible about either I suppose,
except that (2) costs more and someone has to
pay for it.

We can’t all live at the expense of everyone else.
This is a great myth that has existed
for centuries. People always abuse such
systems, and they are always doomed to fail
( like Social Security is doomed …
politicians try to avoid the subject because the
dirty little secret in government is that this
huge entitlement system (where many try to exist
at the expense of others) is really already
doomed to implode within the next 15 years ).
Only remnants of the system may survive,
in which the taxes are high and the benefits are low.

Currently, the U.S. government takes in over
$1.2 trillion annually in taxes. About 60%
of that goes to entitlements like
Social Security and Medicare and Welfare.

About 25% goes to national defense (on average).

Currently, the U.S. government spends about
$1 billion per day on ONLY the interest on the
national debt ( which is about $7.8 trillion ).

It’s that debt ( which was diverted from the
social security system ) that will doom
social security.

On top of that $1 billion in interest daily,
the government is borrowing another $1 billion
daily.

So, you see…spending and debt are out of
control. Some argue that the debt is smaller
than past percentages of the GDP, but the
nation isn’t growing as fast now in this global
economy with much new global competition,
and previously, the U.S. wasn’t saddled with
the ever increasing entitlement systems.

This is why politicians don’t like to approach the
problem with Social Security…because they
know it is already doomed, and they know
it’s a lose-lose all the way around.

Daniel,

Let’s say you are seeing two guy fighting each other. You can’t hear them saying “God Bless America” or “Allah Akbar”. You can’t see one is wearing the stars flag everywhere, and the other has a long beard. How can you tell which one is the terrorist and which one is fighting terrorism ?

Can you please define terrorism ?

Do you think terrorism is as congenital as the color of a skin ? If not, aren’t you curious to know what motivate a terrorist ? Don’t you think that could help to prevent terrorism ?

YES, the USA is a great nation that has achieve A LOT of good things, inside and outside. Everybody knows that. Everybody recognize that.

But you have to play fair and honest: the USA has also create many damages in the world. Most probably part of the hate against the USA you are feeling now has its root in there.

You can really learn if you want to know. Switch off Fox News and go to the library. You are going to have some surprises. Don’t do this as a favor for someone else, do it for your own satisfaction to grow en enlighted opinion.

I already know about the misdeeds of the USA and
some are quite sinister. I’m not ignoring those
crimes.

However, as time goes on, those misdeeds have
decreased as there is more and more
transparency. We continually
hold our politicians to a higher standard,
and more and more refuse to look the other
way and ignore injustices. Some are going to
jail or kicked out of office for simply being bribed
or committing crimes, or immoral behavior
(i.e. Dan Rostinkowsi, Spiro Agnew, Nixon,
Clinton, etc. ). They used to get away
with much too much. That is changing due to
the media, the demands of the people of the U.S.,
and increased transparency.

However, there are always some bad apples.
It’s the overall big picture though;
It’s the overall motive of the nation and its people.
It’s the overal track-record of the nation and its people.
You can’t just pull out a few instances and
draw a conclusion that the U.S. is a bad country.
That’s not to say that any transgressions should
ever be tolerated.

The U.S. is paying a huge price in life
and money to liberate IRAQ. IRAQ was full of
terrorists already, but some are coming to
IRAQ also. Sure, the U.S. has done bad things
like ALL countries, but the action in IRAQ
is not one of them. The action in IRAQ is
one of the most noble in many years.

As for much of the hatred of the U.S.
Much of that is due to our support of Israel,
and many in the middle east have been
brain washed for many decades to hate Jews and
Israelis. Knowing the reason for their hatred
isn’t going to help since the problem lies
entirely with those so full of blinding hate.

The other part of it is irrational fear,
ignorance, and jealousy. Only a small part
of it is justified…and that is based on
our track record. If the U.S. was so terrible,
you would be hearing the overwhelming reasons
for all over. That’s not the case though.
While the U.S. isn’t perfect, it’s obvious to
me and many other nations (e.g. the coalition)
that we generally mean well. If that were not
so, I’d be the first to revolt against the
tyranny and oppression.

The only way to end the hatred is to stop
the brain washing that begins at an early age.
It’s probably too late for a few.

I used to live in IRAN. My family had a maid.
She said the Jews were bad. We asked her why ?
She said they’re just bad.
She didn’t really know why…she was simply
brain washed to hate the Jews. She was about
65 years old and she had just always believed
that without ever questioning its validity.

So, what ever happens to reverse the hatred,
if ever, will probably take a long long time.

Still, how is understanding what makes them
so full of blind hate going to help you ?
Should we abandon Israel and allow them to
be overrun ? Should we evacuate all Israelis
and bring them to the U.S. ( provided they
even want to leave Israel and come to the
U.S.) ? Should we abandon IRAQ and let it
fall back into chaos and oppression ?

Should we just give up ?
Can you afford to do anything but find and
eliminate the terrorists ?

As for your question about the two people
fighting. One is fighting to protect
the rights of others, and one is fighting to
violate the rights of others. One is a
terrorist, and one is not.

You can not reason with terrorists.
Understanding them better won’t help you,
unless it helps eliminate them faster.
You can not cure rabies, just like
you can not cure hateful brain-washing.

Also, note: most people in those regions
don’t really hate the U.S. and are not
fighting us. And many that say they hate the
U.S. just say that because they think that’s
the popular thing to say and they’re afraid
to not conform, but they’re not ready to kill
or die.

Granted, it’s good to analyze and try
to understand the situation as well as
possible, but it’s not OK to give up and
do nothing in the mean time.
It’s not that complicated.
There are evil terrorists that attack
innocent people. They’re motives are
simple. They are full of blind hate.

Our motives are to prevent the terrorists
from attacking innocent people.
What’s wrong with that ?

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/82324.php
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/cgi-bin/show.cgi?nowar28b

AmigaPhil,

The terrorists are to blame for that.

Not the U.S., coalition, and Iraqi troops and
Iraqi police.

Like the terrorists, to believe that the
U.S., coalition, and Iraqi troops are to blame
makes you a minority, and such a mind-set is
much like a terrorist, or a very weak pacifist.

Either way, you are an extreme minority.
Logic doesn’t work on either, but at least the
weak pacifists aren’t necessarily dangerous.
The pacifists just want to give up and do
nothing, and just want to let the terrorists
keep murdering innocent people (Iraqi people
too), and keep endangering the civilians around
them, and keep showing pictures of the dead and
injured.

The casualties are the fault of:
(1) the terrorists,
(2) and those harboring terrorists,
(3) and those that know the terrorists
are amongst them and choose to not
reveal their locations,
(4) and those that chose to not evacuate
even after being advised to do so.

The cowardly terrorists hide amongst the
civilians. They hide in hospitals, and mosques,
and schools, and endanger the civilians around them, because they’re low life scum.

In Falluja, almost all civilians found refuge
elsewhere. Anyone who stays is a fool.
The foolish civilians that harbor the terrorists
and remain in the vicinity of the terrorists
foolishly endanger themselves and their children.
Maybe they stayed because they are terrorists
also.

Loss of life is sad, but it changes nothing.

It only makes the U.S., coalition, and Iraqi
troops, and Iraqi police, and peace loving
Iraqis more resolute to eliminate the low-life
terrorists. Most Iraqis want to be rid
of the terrorists.

Showing the injured and dead only proves that
the terrorists are cowards and low-life rabid
mad dogs that must be eliminated, and that you
are sympathetic to the terrorists, or a weak
pacifist who wants to do nothing but whine
about it.

The terrorists will be eliminated, because
they are wrong, they are a minority, and the
rest of the world wants to be rid of them.
Society won’t tolerate rabid mad dogs in their
midst.

Where’s the outrage against the terrorists ?
Why blame the U.S., coalition, and Iraqi troops ?

The terrorists are also killing Iraqi people.
Most Iraqi people know the terrorists are to
blame.
Where’s the outrage against the terrorists ?

When you blame the U.S. and not the terrorists,
ask the questions you ask above, and say some
of the things you say above, and provide links
to websites that seem sympathetic to
terrorists, I can’t help but believe you are
sympathetic to the terrorists ? Are you ?

ACCOUNTABILITY —- ultimately, we all are:

Now that the election is over
( not that “when” should matter, Bush
wasn’t alone completely on all policies,
both sides play dirty, and there’s still
considerable corruption, and shady activity
in Congress and courts across the country ),
perhaps we should focus on how to hold
Congress, politicians, and ALL citizens to a
higher standard ? Some (not all) politicians
and lawyers (not all) are
master-cheater-parasites that
provide no net benefit to society, and
often substantially harm the fabric of society.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
All systems need checks and balances.
Politicians have wouldn’t have any power,
except for the power we give them.

It’s not impossible to see who the
master-cheater-parasites are.
Sometimes, it is difficult, because they
are clever, and there are cheaters of
varying capacities of greed. Even cheaters
sometimes have limits, but they’re behaviour
is sometimes still damaging to society.

But there are clues, and we should learn to
recognize those clues.

We need to all learn to recognize and scrutinize
the cheaters amongst us, because they’re
deteriorating our society.

The enemy is not really one political party.
The enemy is amongst us, and we need to learn
to identify them, and simply learn that we
should not empower these type of people.

Perhaps we should focus more on these cheaters,
their voting, shady activities, remarks, and
actions, and illegal or unethical activities,
rather than the diversion of petty partisan
politics. Some politicians ( in both parties )
continually try to fuel the diversion of petty
partisan politics, and it is a very effective,
and deceptive strategy to obscure the facts,
shift the blame, deny accountability, change
and confuse the focus, and promote race,
religious, wealth, and class conflicts.
These are the tools of the master-cheater-parasites.

Voters should not let themselves get
sucked into the diversion of petty partisan politics, because it diverts attention away
from the real work and issues we all should
be focusing on.

It may be idealism to believe we will ever
eliminate all of these negative forces, but
it has to start somewhere, and the struggle
will always exist, but it’s not a battle we
can afford to lose.

To start with, we all need to recognize
two following simple, common-sense,
important primary principles (laws) regarding
(1) Rights and (2) Force:

Law # (1)
Everyone has the inalienable right to do
anything they want as long as they do not
violate the inalienable rights of any one
else.
Law # (2)
Force is never justified, except for
self-defense, and/or to arrest criminals
(criminals are those that violate Law # 1
above).

Law # 2 is actually derived from the first
Law # 1, and many other common-sense
sub-principles (laws) can be derived from
the primary principles.

The fact is, universal laws already exist to
support these two simple principles.
All good people everywhere already believe these principles.

Thus, enforcement is more often the problem.
Why should enforcement be a problem ?
Look, and you will find cheater-parasites that
are protecting the criminals (for profit usually).
Some of these cheater-parasites disguise
themselves as defenders of the law, when in
fact, they pervert the law, and strive to
exist and profit from the chaos and misery and
hard work of others, and strive to find ways to
legally plunder society. We need to learn to
identify these cheaters so that we do NOT
mistakenly empower them to deteriorate society.

What I find truly amazing is the fact that it seems no one holds elected officials accountable nor do they notice when evil is perpetrated.The way I see things,politicians have always told people what they think they want to hear then go on excercising their ulterior motives when they’re elected.The reelection proves this.Look at the facts of the past four years:When did dignity return to the election process?does anyone remember the coincidence’s of the last election?.Instead of giving up more of our personal freedoms why don’t we hold accountable those to whom we intrust our safety?.How did we become such a nation of cowards?.Historically violent defiance of oppressive forces have proven beneficial.Unfortunately we are a nation of sheep with wolves as shepherd.Don’t forget 5% control 95%,criminals receive medical\dental\3 meals\while good people are homeless.While abortion is legal consider this:would the mind that considers abortion make a decent parent?