boomerjamhead Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Right and it was my point that we don't need this major war in Pakistan right now because we foolishly shifted our focus from Central Asia, where Bin Laden is, to Iraq. 89471[/snapback] You're right. After Aghan, we should have taken on Iran, Iraq, and Syria simultaneously, so that we wouldn't be looking like fools in Iraq right now. It would have saved us a lot of grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That whole post is just ridiculous. I won't even bother responding. 89483[/snapback] What's so ridiculous about it? Am I wrong about his intentions for North Korea? Am I wrong in stating he wants to have government-run health care? That he wants to make people walk again with his moves on stem cell research? Tell me what is so ridiculous about what I'm stating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That whole post is just ridiculous. I won't even bother responding. 89483[/snapback] Paco's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 You're right. After Aghan, we should have taken on Iran, Iraq, and Syria simultaneously, so that we wouldn't be looking like fools in Iraq right now. It would have saved us a lot of grief. 89493[/snapback] That's such a non-sensical reply. I don't even know where to start setting you straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That's such a non-sensical reply. I don't even know where to start setting you straight. 89504[/snapback] Why? All those f*ckers need to be brought to heel. If I were running the show, for every one American soldier killed by insurgents, a whole town would get flattened. See how long the "resistance" lasts when there's no one left to recruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 What's so ridiculous about it? Am I wrong about his intentions for North Korea? Am I wrong in stating he wants to have government-run health care? That he wants to make people walk again with his moves on stem cell research? Tell me what is so ridiculous about what I'm stating? 89494[/snapback] The notion that a decorated combat veteran will somehow turn us into a weak nation through his diplomacy. You yell out a lot of suppositions and claim to know Kerry's intentions and designs, yet you are really basing these on NOTHING. You don't know what kind of President John Kerry will make simply because he has never BEEN President. George Bush, on the other hand, has been President and we know his record. He has led this country from record surplus to huge deficets. He has led us into an unfinished campaign in Afghanistan and lied to us to get us into a quagmire in Iraq. He has limited the research that scientists can do on stem cell research and therefore let us fall behind in what could be the medical technology of the 21st Century. He was the sitting President during the largest attack on American soil ever and has done nothing to improve our border security. That's not even mentioning Cheney (the true president) and his crooked dealings. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you truly are better off today than you were 4 years ago. For me the answer is absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Why? All those f*ckers need to be brought to heel. If I were running the show, for every one American soldier killed by insurgents, a whole town would get flattened. See how long the "resistance" lasts when there's no one left to recruit. 89509[/snapback] Look I AGREE with that sentiment. I don't want another American soldier to die EVER. The problem that I have with Bush is that I feel he put them in harm's way for nothing more than a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIZ Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 The notion that a decorated combat veteran will somehow turn us into a weak nation through his diplomacy. 89516[/snapback] Don't tell me you weren't laughing when you typed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Not to turn this into a big political debate, but one quote struck me as interesting. "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now." So basically what they're saying is if we hadn't taken off in the wrong direction in Iraq we'd have enough troops to go get him. Another reason why I won't be voting for Bush. 89388[/snapback] Yeah...I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Pakistan is a soverign nation and ally. And "somewhere in Baluchistan" isn't quite "exact". "Hey, we've know what mountain range he's in...let's invade a soverign, allied nation!" Really...some of you people are !@#$ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The notion that a decorated combat veteran will somehow turn us into a weak nation through his diplomacy. You yell out a lot of suppositions and claim to know Kerry's intentions and designs, yet you are really basing these on NOTHING. You don't know what kind of President John Kerry will make simply because he has never BEEN President. George Bush, on the other hand, has been President and we know his record. He has led this country from record surplus to huge deficets. He has led us into an unfinished campaign in Afghanistan and lied to us to get us into a quagmire in Iraq. He has limited the research that scientists can do on stem cell research and therefore let us fall behind in what could be the medical technology of the 21st Century. He was the sitting President during the largest attack on American soil ever and has done nothing to improve our border security. That's not even mentioning Cheney (the true president) and his crooked dealings. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you truly are better off today than you were 4 years ago. For me the answer is absolutely not. 89516[/snapback] Can you mention Halliburton, Flight Suit, No Blood for Oil and the rest of the talking points without mentioning them. Very clever and extremely misguided. Al Franken & Michael Moore would be proud of your regurgitating skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The notion that a decorated combat veteran will somehow turn us into a weak nation through his diplomacy. You yell out a lot of suppositions and claim to know Kerry's intentions and designs, yet you are really basing these on NOTHING. You don't know what kind of President John Kerry will make simply because he has never BEEN President. George Bush, on the other hand, has been President and we know his record. He has led this country from record surplus to huge deficets. He has led us into an unfinished campaign in Afghanistan and lied to us to get us into a quagmire in Iraq. He has limited the research that scientists can do on stem cell research and therefore let us fall behind in what could be the medical technology of the 21st Century. He was the sitting President during the largest attack on American soil ever and has done nothing to improve our border security. That's not even mentioning Cheney (the true president) and his crooked dealings. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you truly are better off today than you were 4 years ago. For me the answer is absolutely not. 89516[/snapback] First of all, exactly what is unfinished in Afghanistan? Getting UBL while he's sucking bone marrow to stay alive in some hole? Seems to me Al Quada can no longer function openly there, and they recently had elections. Sounds like things are going in the right direction for a country that was ruled by fear. Second of all, I AM better off than I was four years ago, but the difference between us apparently is that I don't rely on my government to make my life better. I take the responsibility on myself. The moment I leave my life in the hands of anyone other than myself, I lose the ability to be in control of my life. I'll get my own better-paying job, my own health care coverage, and protect my life and my family's life as best I can. If the government wants to help, fine, but don't make me pay for people who can't accept their own lack of personal accountability. Thirdly, Kerry has been very clear about his bilateral talks with NK and his desire to provide more sanctions on them, just like Clinton did with absolutely no success whatsoever. Since Kerry has never been president, I have to assume that THIS is how he will handle things given he's been so open about it. I think this is completely wrong and dangerous and will put us on the defensive again on a global scale. And for what it's worth, our president went to war in Iraq with the same information your candidate had when he approved the war, so I'd appreciate it if you'd make sure each time you suggest Bush lied about Iraq that you add Kerry also lied about Iraq given that they made the same decision based on the same intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Can you mention Halliburton, Flight Suit, No Blood for Oil and the rest of the talking points without mentioning them. Very clever and extremely misguided. Al Franken & Michael Moore would be proud of your regurgitating skills. 89550[/snapback] Thanks for saving me the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That's such a non-sensical reply. I don't even know where to start setting you straight. 89504[/snapback] I can wait until you're done setting Paco straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I can wait until you're done setting Paco straight. 89568[/snapback] That's a ridiculous reply to his ridiculous reply and I'm not even going to respond to this, even though I'm responding to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Wow. This sure is fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Really don't have time for this right now, but a few things. I don't rely on the government to provide a living for me. I do, however, rely on the government to maintain stable conditions so that the market can operate with the least amount of hinderances. The cost of gasoline being what they are and the roll back of many environmental regulations by this administration have affected me. Pakistan may be a sovereign nation, but that didn't seem to stop us from invading Iraq. As to whether they are an ally, that is debatable. With allies like that it's no wonder we are hard pressed to find members of this coalition. Some of you people are so reactionary. I question Bush and automatically I'm labelled some kind of raving liberal. The truth is I'm usually more of a conservative. I don't limit myself to any particular ideology. I am only interested in this country living up to its ideals and realizing its potential. Had I voted in the 2000 election (I was overseas and didn't feel like going through the hassle of absentee ballot) I would have voted for George Bush. I'm not Clintonite, I thought he did a lot of things wrong and I felt like Gore was not a leader. However, after 4 years of George Bush I feel like we have gone backwards instead of forwards. As far as me "regurgitating" talking points. What am I supposed to do? Those are the issues. If anyone repeats those and disagrees with you I guess they automatically don't know what they're talking about. I guess it's somehow different when you write about Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Yeah...I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Pakistan is a soverign nation and ally. And "somewhere in Baluchistan" isn't quite "exact". "Hey, we've know what mountain range he's in...let's invade a soverign, allied nation!" Really...some of you people are !@#$ing stupid. 89542[/snapback] Make that a sovereign nation with nukes that could fall into extremists' hands with a carefully placed bomb. The logic that I don't get is the people who decry the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, are more than willing to have us jump into Saudi Arabia & Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Pakistan may be a sovereign nation, but that didn't seem to stop us from invading Iraq. As to whether they are an ally, that is debatable. With allies like that it's no wonder we are hard pressed to find members of this coalition. 89613[/snapback] 1) What is the Durand line? 2) What is the NWFP? 3) Where are the Pashtun located? 3) What is the relationship between the ISI, the Pashtun, the Taliban, and the Mujahadeen? 4) What is Musharraf's current policy towards each of the above, and why? 5) What was Clinton's foreign policy towards the above, and Pakistan, and the former Soviet republics in the area (Tadjikistan, Kasakhstan, Uzbekistan), and why? 6) What is Bush's foreign policy towards all of the above, and why? Until you can answer those questions, you don't have the first clue as to what goes on in that region. Believe it or not, the world is sometimes a complex place that requires actual thought and study to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 1) What is the Durand line?2) What is the NWFP? 3) Where are the Pashtun located? 3) What is the relationship between the ISI, the Pashtun, the Taliban, and the Mujahadeen? 4) What is Musharraf's current policy towards each of the above, and why? 5) What was Clinton's foreign policy towards the above, and Pakistan, and the former Soviet republics in the area (Tadjikistan, Kasakhstan, Uzbekistan), and why? 6) What is Bush's foreign policy towards all of the above, and why? Until you can answer those questions, you don't have the first clue as to what goes on in that region. Believe it or not, the world is sometimes a complex place that requires actual thought and study to understand. 89738[/snapback] Can I play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 1) What is the Durand line?2) What is the NWFP? 3) Where are the Pashtun located? 3) What is the relationship between the ISI, the Pashtun, the Taliban, and the Mujahadeen? 4) What is Musharraf's current policy towards each of the above, and why? 5) What was Clinton's foreign policy towards the above, and Pakistan, and the former Soviet republics in the area (Tadjikistan, Kasakhstan, Uzbekistan), and why? 6) What is Bush's foreign policy towards all of the above, and why? Until you can answer those questions, you don't have the first clue as to what goes on in that region. Believe it or not, the world is sometimes a complex place that requires actual thought and study to understand. 89738[/snapback] I know 4 answers, maybe 5 can I play too? Oh and why do you have two #3's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts