Mickey Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 And you think that because...? 22758[/snapback] Because they believe that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are the best thing that ever happened to AQ. They hated Saddam and from their stand point, we got rid of him and the Baathists for them. Now they will harass and kill our troops until we leave and the government we installed collapses. Then it will become part of the caliphate they are trying to build. I could go on but the point is that a rational argument could be made either way as to who the terrorists would prefer to have in office. It is all speculative crap but I have heard that so many times here, that the bad guys want Kerry, that I thought it time to balance it. Frankly, I don't think the terrorist give a damn who is leading the "great satan".
Mickey Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Most of the rest of the world wants Kerry cause he'll be a pushover. 22840[/snapback] Right. The hockey playing vet who volunteered to get shot at and did is the pushover and the cheer leading, duty shirking, 12 stepper whose wild youth didn't end until he was 45 or so is the stud. Makes sense. Lets see, DWI conviction=stud; bronze star=kitty. Okie dokie. Not that it is within a thousand miles of relevant but when it comes to being "tough", I'll go with the combat vet over the cheer leader.
MichFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Right. The hockey playing vet who volunteered to get shot at and did is the pushover and the cheer leading, duty shirking, 12 stepper whose wild youth didn't end until he was 45 or so is the stud. Makes sense. Lets see, DWI conviction=stud; bronze star=kitty. Okie dokie. Not that it is within a thousand miles of relevant but when it comes to being "tough", I'll go with the combat vet over the cheer leader. How this has anything to do with where we are today and what has happened in recent history -- I don't know. The polls have turned against the libs and they are just cracking up all of a sudden -- it's even getting to a normally good poster like Mickey.
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Right. The hockey playing vet who volunteered to get shot at and did is the pushover and the cheer leading, duty shirking, 12 stepper whose wild youth didn't end until he was 45 or so is the stud. Makes sense. Lets see, DWI conviction=stud; bronze star=kitty. Okie dokie. Jeez, Mickey. It's more like a choice between the guy who blew the fug out of Al Queda and sent them scampering into holes and the guy who can't figure out if he's going to tax the middle class or not. It's the guy who caught Saddam Hussein in a rat-infested hole and the guy who can't even make a decision about what he would do with the troops in Iraq. Don't fool yourself. Terrorists have TVs and they can read and when they see John Kerry, they're licking their lips and putting a hankie around their neck to catch the spillover.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 The liberals are acting like Bills fans after James Washington took that TT fumble back for a touchdown. Yeah, they know they're still in it, but it's headed down Ugly Avenue for the liberals and the Democratic party. Watch out John John, yer losing yer grip on Pennsyltucky.
_BiB_ Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I wasn't going to do this... AQ desires a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly, they are planning on him reducing US presence in the middle east (more of a political move than strategic) with a defensive concentration centered into homeland defense. As their immediate goal is not "destroying our way of life", but removing western influence (especially US influence, as it's driving them bonkers having us in the hood) from the region. With the US, and preferably all western influence out - fully understanding that Russia is too weak to fill the vacuum, it creates a much more favorable situation for them to form the Caliphate. A primary strategic goal of the Caliphate is to remove the Saudi royal family from power and gain hold over the oil reserves. In this, they have the full support of Iran and to a lesser extent, Syria. The more moderate governments of the middle east and central Asia will either have to fall in line, or eventually risk very bad things as Iran is already in possession of some pretty decent missiles and a large WMD inventory. One has to remember that Iran also has aspirations of it's own, and might view AQ and other radical extremist groups as a willing tool. The government of Pakistan is likely to fall. Both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and the related delivery systems now. Pakistan and India don't like each other - Hindu vs. Muslim. It becomes a very, very volatile situation. Harp on having hydrogen powered cars all you like, but the oil issue is not going anywhere. Check out the statistics on where mid-east oil actually goes. A fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate controlling such a huge portion of the world's oil supply will have a very destabilizing influence on the world economy (ironically putting France in the catbird seat, as they have so many deals going on you'd think they were used car salesman). Couple that with a usable nuclear capability and some pretty good sized conventional forces and one has created a situation where a muslim super-power is born. Do we all feel that to be a good thing? Keep in mind-the ultimate goal is to have the entire world reading out of the Quran. It won't happen fast-they even plan on it taking several generations-but that isthe ultimate goal. Knowing that-one can imagine their political strategy. This is a lot bigger than just AQ. The current administrations strategy of taking the fight to THEIR backyard, while flawed in execution is the one thing standing in their way. France feels they can cut a deal-because they have always been friends with that sort. I'm not sure where Germany and Russia sit - but remember that Sadaams bunkers were built by German engineers and the nuclear complex containing several hundred tons of yellowcake housed not only French but a Russian reactor, a breeder by the way. France and Germany want to lead the way for the EU. They know damn well sitting this one out and letting the US go alone would put a big strain on us, and have a serious negative impact on our relations with the rest of the world. Forget the rhetoric-everyone here is working in their own self interest. As for which way to go making America safer? In the long term, over the next 15-20 years. No, for reasons given above. These people are not negotiators. It's their way or the highway. Short term? Who knows. Flip a coin. We are not dealing with rational people, in our terms. They are just as likely to blow something up soon to give the impression that Bush is not doing his job as they are to blow something up AFTER Kerry gets elected to cause greater pressure to withdraw from the sandbox. They might not blow up anything at all. That is unlikely, because within this happy little family is the extreme of the extreme element who just want to blow things up. That's why planning for defense is such an interesting thing to do right now. Believe me, things were a lot easier when the Soviet Union was the bad guy. One knew pretty well exactly what to expect, and where. You know what 9/11 really was? A commercial. A calling card. "We've arrived". Based on our history over the previous 8 years, AQ never expected the reaction it got. Probably figured on a dozen or so cruise missiles, tops. And though I hate to bring up the "word", probably the greatest danger over the next few years involves WMD. A consolidation of effort within the fundamentalist nations and the non-state terror groups will make that threat a reality sooner than later. staying in their face, and trying to de-stabilize/convert the radical regimes is the only viable strategy over the long haul. As for allies, we have many. Allowing the bad guys to gain firmer foothold will make them go away, not create more. It is much more important to have Pakistan as a working ally than it is to have France. Quit viewing things in one dimension. Even one tiny piece of the puzzle-India/Pakistan-Pakistan/Afghanistan is tremendously complicated and a tightrope walk. Don't disregard Asia in the equation. Who outside of the middle east not only has a muslim population but large oil reserves? Most rational people do not like war, but sometimes, often as a matter of fact-it is necessary. This is not and never has been a question of Halliburton getting contracts, and shame on any of you who really think it is. It's a question of what kind of world your kids are going to live in 20 years from now. It's a question of what is in the best interests of the United States. In the simplest terms, WTF cares what anyone else thinks. They all have to deal with us one way or the other. If this could have been done nicey-nice, with everyone sitting around toasting marshmallows and singing Kumbaya-it would have been. Take another look at Mickey's things that got blowed up list-then re-read this post. It's called escalation. It happens. This is A WAR. One we did not start. Sure, our history over there has given cause to a lot of resentments. Supporting the Shah didn't do us any favors. But do you seriously think that Kerry is just going to crap on Israel? When has a President-Republican or Democrat ever done that? "Solving" the Israeli-Palestine issue is not going to make this go away, and isn't going to happen anyway. It does not necessarily mean we are not doing the job. It is not a result of our policy-our policy is a result of it. Figure it out.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Link? Nice nervous breakdown today, Exiled. You libs live by the polls and the polls are just killing you guys now. Notice the latest Ohio poll? Ouch! Florida? Ouch! Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri? Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch! You need 5 out of 6 and at this pace you'll be lucky to get 3. 22597[/snapback] That's why the polls are responsible for choosing our presidents! The Dewey Administration really got us into that Korea quagmire...
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I wasn't going to do this... AQ desires a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly, they are planning on him reducing US presence in the middle east (more of a political move than strategic) with a defensive concentration centered into homeland defense. As their immediate goal is not "destroying our way of life", but removing western influence (especially US influence, as it's driving them bonkers having us in the hood) from the region. With the US, and preferably all western influence out - fully understanding that Russia is too weak to fill the vacuum, it creates a much more favorable situation for them to form the Caliphate. A primary strategic goal of the Caliphate is to remove the Saudi royal family from power and gain hold over the oil reserves. In this, they have the full support of Iran and to a lesser extent, Syria. The more moderate governments of the middle east and central Asia will either have to fall in line, or eventually risk very bad things as Iran is already in possession of some pretty decent missiles and a large WMD inventory. One has to remember that Iran also has aspirations of it's own, and might view AQ and other radical extremist groups as a willing tool. The government of Pakistan is likely to fall. Both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and the related delivery systems now. Pakistan and India don't like each other - Hindu vs. Muslim. It becomes a very, very volatile situation. Harp on having hydrogen powered cars all you like, but the oil issue is not going anywhere. Check out the statistics on where mid-east oil actually goes. A fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate controlling such a huge portion of the world's oil supply will have a very destabilizing influence on the world economy (ironically putting France in the catbird seat, as they have so many deals going on you'd think they were used car salesman). Couple that with a usable nuclear capability and some pretty good sized conventional forces and one has created a situation where a muslim super-power is born. Do we all feel that to be a good thing? Keep in mind-the ultimate goal is to have the entire world reading out of the Quran. It won't happen fast-they even plan on it taking several generations-but that isthe ultimate goal. Knowing that-one can imagine their political strategy. This is a lot bigger than just AQ. The current administrations strategy of taking the fight to THEIR backyard, while flawed in execution is the one thing standing in their way. France feels they can cut a deal-because they have always been friends with that sort. I'm not sure where Germany and Russia sit - but remember that Sadaams bunkers were built by German engineers and the nuclear complex containing several hundred tons of yellowcake housed not only French but a Russian reactor, a breeder by the way. France and Germany want to lead the way for the EU. They know damn well sitting this one out and letting the US go alone would put a big strain on us, and have a serious negative impact on our relations with the rest of the world. Forget the rhetoric-everyone here is working in their own self interest. As for which way to go making America safer? In the long term, over the next 15-20 years. No, for reasons given above. These people are not negotiators. It's their way or the highway. Short term? Who knows. Flip a coin. We are not dealing with rational people, in our terms. They are just as likely to blow something up soon to give the impression that Bush is not doing his job as they are to blow something up AFTER Kerry gets elected to cause greater pressure to withdraw from the sandbox. They might not blow up anything at all. That is unlikely, because within this happy little family is the extreme of the extreme element who just want to blow things up. That's why planning for defense is such an interesting thing to do right now. Believe me, things were a lot easier when the Soviet Union was the bad guy. One knew pretty well exactly what to expect, and where. You know what 9/11 really was? A commercial. A calling card. "We've arrived". Based on our history over the previous 8 years, AQ never expected the reaction it got. Probably figured on a dozen or so cruise missiles, tops. And though I hate to bring up the "word", probably the greatest danger over the next few years involves WMD. A consolidation of effort within the fundamentalist nations and the non-state terror groups will make that threat a reality sooner than later. staying in their face, and trying to de-stabilize/convert the radical regimes is the only viable strategy over the long haul. As for allies, we have many. Allowing the bad guys to gain firmer foothold will make them go away, not create more. It is much more important to have Pakistan as a working ally than it is to have France. Quit viewing things in one dimension. Even one tiny piece of the puzzle-India/Pakistan-Pakistan/Afghanistan is tremendously complicated and a tightrope walk. Don't disregard Asia in the equation. Who outside of the middle east not only has a muslim population but large oil reserves? Most rational people do not like war, but sometimes, often as a matter of fact-it is necessary. This is not and never has been a question of Halliburton getting contracts, and shame on any of you who really think it is. It's a question of what kind of world your kids are going to live in 20 years from now. It's a question of what is in the best interests of the United States. In the simplest terms, WTF cares what anyone else thinks. They all have to deal with us one way or the other. If this could have been done nicey-nice, with everyone sitting around toasting marshmallows and singing Kumbaya-it would have been. Take another look at Mickey's things that got blowed up list-then re-read this post. It's called escalation. It happens. This is A WAR. One we did not start. Sure, our history over there has given cause to a lot of resentments. Supporting the Shah didn't do us any favors. But do you seriously think that Kerry is just going to crap on Israel? When has a President-Republican or Democrat ever done that? "Solving" the Israeli-Palestine issue is not going to make this go away, and isn't going to happen anyway. It does not necessarily mean we are not doing the job. It is not a result of our policy-our policy is a result of it. Figure it out. 23060[/snapback] Brilliant post. This really puts everything in perspective. I am very interested to hear the left's response to this. Blzrul...Mickey...T-boy...do you have ANY response to this or should we just discuss Vietnam and the Guard some more. Do you agree or disagree with what he says? If you agree, how do you feel Kerry will move us forward. If you disagree, please explain why. Anyone? Bueller???
Alaska Darin Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Brilliant post. This really puts everything in perspective. I am very interested to hear the left's response to this. Blzrul...Mickey...T-boy...do you have ANY response to this or should we just discuss Vietnam and the Guard some more. Do you agree or disagree with what he says? If you agree, how do you feel Kerry will move us forward. If you disagree, please explain why. Anyone? Bueller??? 23543[/snapback] Remember, military service wasn't an issue because Bill Clinton didn't have any. Now it is because John Kerry served for 4 whole months and George Bush apparently used help from a Democrat (who by his own admission was cowing to rich oil men) to avoid Vietnam. Nice couple of parties you folks belong to.
tennesseeboy Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 How this has anything to do with where we are today and what has happened in recent history -- I don't know. The polls have turned against the libs and they are just cracking up all of a sudden -- it's even getting to a normally good poster like Mickey. 22935[/snapback] Blew up Al Qaeda? Not lately. The leader of the free world is too afraid to say the guys name! What a loser. He runs off to Nebraska or somewhere when the country is under attack, and then after its over goes to the WTC and says he is going to Get the guys who did this.."smoke them out"..."dead or alive" and then doesn't do it. He wrote a big check that has been bouncing for three years while he fritters away 2 BILLION dollars and over 1000 American lives in his little episode in Iraq. I'll be interested in the November 2 poll, thank you very much.
tennesseeboy Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I wasn't going to do this... AQ desires a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly, they are planning on him reducing US presence in the middle east (more of a political move than strategic) with a defensive concentration centered into homeland defense. As their immediate goal is not "destroying our way of life", but removing western influence (especially US influence, as it's driving them bonkers having us in the hood) from the region. With the US, and preferably all western influence out - fully understanding that Russia is too weak to fill the vacuum, it creates a much more favorable situation for them to form the Caliphate. A primary strategic goal of the Caliphate is to remove the Saudi royal family from power and gain hold over the oil reserves. In this, they have the full support of Iran and to a lesser extent, Syria. The more moderate governments of the middle east and central Asia will either have to fall in line, or eventually risk very bad things as Iran is already in possession of some pretty decent missiles and a large WMD inventory. One has to remember that Iran also has aspirations of it's own, and might view AQ and other radical extremist groups as a willing tool. The government of Pakistan is likely to fall. Both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and the related delivery systems now. Pakistan and India don't like each other - Hindu vs. Muslim. It becomes a very, very volatile situation. Harp on having hydrogen powered cars all you like, but the oil issue is not going anywhere. Check out the statistics on where mid-east oil actually goes. A fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate controlling such a huge portion of the world's oil supply will have a very destabilizing influence on the world economy (ironically putting France in the catbird seat, as they have so many deals going on you'd think they were used car salesman). Couple that with a usable nuclear capability and some pretty good sized conventional forces and one has created a situation where a muslim super-power is born. Do we all feel that to be a good thing? Keep in mind-the ultimate goal is to have the entire world reading out of the Quran. It won't happen fast-they even plan on it taking several generations-but that isthe ultimate goal. Knowing that-one can imagine their political strategy. This is a lot bigger than just AQ. The current administrations strategy of taking the fight to THEIR backyard, while flawed in execution is the one thing standing in their way. France feels they can cut a deal-because they have always been friends with that sort. I'm not sure where Germany and Russia sit - but remember that Sadaams bunkers were built by German engineers and the nuclear complex containing several hundred tons of yellowcake housed not only French but a Russian reactor, a breeder by the way. France and Germany want to lead the way for the EU. They know damn well sitting this one out and letting the US go alone would put a big strain on us, and have a serious negative impact on our relations with the rest of the world. Forget the rhetoric-everyone here is working in their own self interest. As for which way to go making America safer? In the long term, over the next 15-20 years. No, for reasons given above. These people are not negotiators. It's their way or the highway. Short term? Who knows. Flip a coin. We are not dealing with rational people, in our terms. They are just as likely to blow something up soon to give the impression that Bush is not doing his job as they are to blow something up AFTER Kerry gets elected to cause greater pressure to withdraw from the sandbox. They might not blow up anything at all. That is unlikely, because within this happy little family is the extreme of the extreme element who just want to blow things up. That's why planning for defense is such an interesting thing to do right now. Believe me, things were a lot easier when the Soviet Union was the bad guy. One knew pretty well exactly what to expect, and where. You know what 9/11 really was? A commercial. A calling card. "We've arrived". Based on our history over the previous 8 years, AQ never expected the reaction it got. Probably figured on a dozen or so cruise missiles, tops. And though I hate to bring up the "word", probably the greatest danger over the next few years involves WMD. A consolidation of effort within the fundamentalist nations and the non-state terror groups will make that threat a reality sooner than later. staying in their face, and trying to de-stabilize/convert the radical regimes is the only viable strategy over the long haul. As for allies, we have many. Allowing the bad guys to gain firmer foothold will make them go away, not create more. It is much more important to have Pakistan as a working ally than it is to have France. Quit viewing things in one dimension. Even one tiny piece of the puzzle-India/Pakistan-Pakistan/Afghanistan is tremendously complicated and a tightrope walk. Don't disregard Asia in the equation. Who outside of the middle east not only has a muslim population but large oil reserves? Most rational people do not like war, but sometimes, often as a matter of fact-it is necessary. This is not and never has been a question of Halliburton getting contracts, and shame on any of you who really think it is. It's a question of what kind of world your kids are going to live in 20 years from now. It's a question of what is in the best interests of the United States. In the simplest terms, WTF cares what anyone else thinks. They all have to deal with us one way or the other. If this could have been done nicey-nice, with everyone sitting around toasting marshmallows and singing Kumbaya-it would have been. Take another look at Mickey's things that got blowed up list-then re-read this post. It's called escalation. It happens. This is A WAR. One we did not start. Sure, our history over there has given cause to a lot of resentments. Supporting the Shah didn't do us any favors. But do you seriously think that Kerry is just going to crap on Israel? When has a President-Republican or Democrat ever done that? "Solving" the Israeli-Palestine issue is not going to make this go away, and isn't going to happen anyway. It does not necessarily mean we are not doing the job. It is not a result of our policy-our policy is a result of it. Figure it out. 23060[/snapback] nonsense. Al Qaeda and the Bin Laden family have the person they want in the white house. AQ is now a bigger menace than ever because of Bush and his ilks inability or unwillingness to address the problem. Look at the Russians. They know who the enemy is and they know that they are going after a gang of thugs (not an "axis of evil".) You won't see Putin mincing around in a flight suit and saying "mission accomplished" until he actually accomplishes something. Nuance is not GWB or DC's strong point and they have done nothing to deal with other foreign policy issues.
MichFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 He wrote a big check that has been bouncing for three years while he fritters away 2 BILLION dollars and over 1000 American lives in his little episode in Iraq. $2 billion -- what a deal. I'd be willing to spend even $200 billion at this stage of the game . BTW - you may want to edit your reply to Bib, it ended up inside the quote. Bib -- great to see you hanging around again. Excellent post!
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 AQ is now a bigger menace than ever because of Bush and his ilks inability or unwillingness to address the problem. Look at the Russians. They know who the enemy is and they know that they are going after a gang of thugs (not an "axis of evil".) You won't see Putin mincing around in a flight suit and saying "mission accomplished" until he actually accomplishes something. I can not possibly believe that you took a well thought-out explanation of what is at the root of the Middle East issues and respond with the above statement. AQ is not a bigger menace than EVER? What freakin' world do you live in, man? They'd committed worse atrocities than we saw on 9/11??? Really??? Did I miss them? You should've let the crickets respond for you, T-boy, because with every sentence it becomes clear that you have absolutely, positively NO ability to comprehend what BiB is talking about.
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 Left unmentioned in that piece of journalism was other nuggets of information that the US electorate should consider by themselves. Such as that 58% of Europeans consider strong US leadership "undesirable" So there you go, the Europeans have spoken on what kind of US leader they prefer.
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 Left unmentioned in that piece of journalism was other nuggets of information that the US electorate should consider by themselves. Such as that 58% of Europeans consider strong US leadership "undesirable" So there you go, the Europeans have spoken on what kind of US leader they prefer. 26392[/snapback] Weak. Like their own. Look what happened when the last strong European leader wanted to shape the world.
erynthered Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Left unmentioned in that piece of journalism was other nuggets of information that the US electorate should consider by themselves. Such as that 58% of Europeans consider strong US leadership "undesirable" So there you go, the Europeans have spoken on what kind of US leader they prefer. 26392[/snapback] You KNOW how much everyone takes stock in polls, yet you gave a figure. Some may call you an assssshole, but I know better.
GG Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 23692[/snapback] Maybe you could do some research on the respective histories of Chechnya & Russia before idolizing Putin for his likely response to the massacre.
_BiB_ Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Ok, I'll bite. I've given a Reader's Digest view of the bigger picture of all this. And all the opinions went away. Happens a lot when I post, unless I directly question Senator Kerry. Guess I'm too much of a partisan raving mellon head idiot to discuss CNN reports or Dan Rather with. This subject deserves volumes, not posts. Anyone from the left want to make an intelligent, non-ranting post? I say the left, because the right side will agree because this is the Bush policy. I'm not discussing politics. I'm discussing how it is. I know where we are going and what we are doing with the current policies. Someone out there convince me how, given the situation, Kerry's philosophies will address this problem in the best interest of the United States. and keep this monster from becoming 10 times it's size. No coulda woulda shoulda. This is the hand we are playing. How do you address it? What is Senator Kerry campaigning with that tells you he has a better way?
swede316 Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Kerry has no clue......He really shouldn't be the Dem's choice. He has money...thats what they were banking on...but his Senate record and Vietnam boastings are really a negative. I applaud Senator Kerry for his service..but why only 4 months vice the mandatory 1 year? ....I have ?'s about his medals...but what is more important are his senate record and his credability....His senate record is crap and so is his credability......He does not stick by a decision he makes..For a US Senator ...I can't and won't buy that.
Recommended Posts