Weapons of mass destruction were used against the US. We could just have easily used our own. Instead he chooses to be as deliberate as possible and he has tried to contain causalities as much as possible.

I don't see any real problem with his response in Afghanistan. My question is what comes next?

Columbia has already asked for help with their terrorists. What happens if Britain asks for help against Irish terrorists or Israel asks for military aid against Palestinian terrorist?

I heard Condelisa Rice say that the next terror targets were North Korea, Iraq and Iran. I think it is wise to limit his response to nations that we are pretty certain have international terrorist cells. But how do you distinguish freedom fighters from terrorists? What if Cuba asks for aid in putting down terrorism from anti-Castro forces?

Well, almost. Does anyone know what Algore was doing in 'Nam? Anybody see the picture of the fool with his own gun propped on the ground pointed right at his noggin? [It was on his campaign website for crying out loud! Hard to believe, but he's actually proud of that picture....]

Might be worth knowing before claiming he was the inspiration for John Rambo or something....

Also:
Approximate Money in Taxes the Government collected before Reagan's tax cuts in 1980--500,000,000,000

Approximate Money in Taxes the Government collected in 1990--1,000,000,000,000.

I think before you people get pissed at Bush for pulling out of a HORRIBLE Kyoto treaty (which no one in their right mind would have ratified...and didn't) and calling him the worst thing since Adolf Hitler, you need to do some research into the envirmental situations in oil-producing states like Azerbaijan (sp?). Their record is FAR FAR worse than America's.
Get a little perspective.

Be an environmentalist, fine. But when you start to be irrational about it, you are in danger of becoming a wacko.

You don't want the US to come to your backyard and clean out the terrorist trash?

Fine. YOU do it. If we can make the world a less dangerous, I think we should do it.

3,000 people died violently on Sept 11 for the inaction of many people. How many more are kidnapped and executed?
Those responsible MUST pay; they WILL pay. These are BAD people who want nothing more than to KILL Americans and Jews, and whoever else happens to be in the way.

War is bad; we all know this.
But war is sometimes needed to ensure everyone's ultimate safety and security.

That's the HARSH reality of life in this damn world. If we, the U.S., sit back and do nothing, they will hit us again and again.

And so forgive me if I don't question the need to take the fight to them.

Yeah right, winning the war on terrorism is such a mark of bad leadership (I love how Senator "I caree more about election issues than my country" Daschle has had to do more backtracking of late)

"As for Reagan, the man was the greatest fraud ever inflicted on the citizenry of this country."

As opposed to the reality of Jimmy Carter and 18% inflation, gas lines, humiliation in Iran, and helicopters that couldn't function for a simple rescuse mission and the even goofier reality of Fritz "I will raise your taxes" Mondale?

Bottom line: Ronald Reagan was a giant among presidents and Jimmy Carter and his opponents were mental midgets of the first order and the American people knew what they were doing. Show a little respect for democracy sometime and wise up to the fact that your side failed.

"Regarding what Al Gore might've done had he been in the Oval Office on Sept. 11, you've got to be pretty damn naive to imagine that any politician would, if handed such a golden opportunity, hesitate to let slip the dogs of war."

Oh, but I CAN imagine it just by judging the conduct of his predecessor who watched while (1) The WTC was bombed in 1993 (2) The USS Cole was bombed with casualties etc. etc. etc. yet the only time the Slickmeister had the guts to take any military action against terrorism was when he needed to distract attention from first Lewinsky's grand jury testimony and then the impeachment vote.

"The only difference is that Gore, having served in Vietnam"

Yeah, such valor when one is a reporter safe out of the combat zone.

"so we'd have the money Clinton saved for us that we could now use to pay for this Crusade"

You left out the weakening of our intelligence agencies and the moronic foreign policy of the Slickmeister that made 9/11 possible in the first place.

And yes, this is a Crusade against terrorism and I for one am sick and tired of hearing about Bush making some "gaffe" for that word. If the Muslims who constantly find ways to whitewash and justify butchery committed by people of their faith, somehow can't learn to let go of something that happened 800 years ago (in which they were hardly paragons of righteousness) that's their problem, not George Bush's.

Eric, you picked the wrong topic to look in on after returning, that's for sure.

El Cid--Many on the Right and Libertarian side of things have been reclaiming the term 'Liberal' for themselves for years, calling it Classical Liberalism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JClark:
I, as an American, feel a whole lot safer because of GWB's "international decisions."

---

As I said before, I totally agree that something had to be done. My problems is: Bush obviously *enjoys* killing "evil guys". And he doesn't care for the innocent (unless they're American). I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to bomb a skyscraper full of civilians just to kill Bin Laden, who happens to be in it. Bin Laden is ONE stupid *******! Why risk thousands of lives just to kill him as quickly as possible? Surely there are better ways (like showing the people in Afghanistan that the US aren't as evil as some of them believe - otherwise it's likely that someone else will come and replace Bin Laden sooner or later).

(Eric Paddon: Calling me a supporter of terrorism because I'm against killing *innocent* people is about as insulting as you could possibly get - am I calling you Hitler?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
El Cid,

I was comparing the relative prosperity of the working class of the 1840s to the current working class. My point was that as the working class we are better off after the social policies instituted by Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt. Without those changes we would probably not be in a position to argue the point over the internet.

I am not sure how the small part you quoted is fallacious in terms of the overall post

---

It's fallacious because lots of things changed between 1840 and now. You aren't isolating out the things you want to compare.

So you don't have any empirical basis for your statement, and you haven't given any theoretical argument.

If you study the matter, I think you will find that government regulations follow, rather than preceed, social progress. For example, the minimum wage is increased to $X only after almost everyone is earning more than $X.

This is, like it or not, a war. And wars can not be fought with half hearted handwringings to make them painless, they must be fought to fulfill the objective. That, George Bush is doing and doing quite well, much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party and to the fury of those outside America whose criticisms, from my standpoint, can only stem from a deep-seated hatred of America if they are always quick to keep blaming America first for their actions and not the nations that are responsible for making terrorism possible.

Also, with regard to the "defense treaty" that the President cancelled which raises your hackles, that was a bad treaty that is totally out of date in today's world, where I believe that American security requires the development of a missile defense program and not being bound by a bad treaty from the Cold War days that gave unilateral advantages to the Soviet regime at the time. If Russia wants to develop their own ABM system to protect them from rouge nations, fine by me.

The slaves were freed before the Emancipation Proclamation.

People worked a 40 hour week before it was mandated by law and people had social security before the legislation passed and no one was using Child labor when it was banned.

Woman already had the legal right to vote, they just didn’t until universal suffrage was passed.

Unemployment insurance sprang into existence before it was established.

Thank you for correcting my missteps in history.

Since we are discussing a “what if”, empirical evidence is quite impossible (What if Hitler had won WWII? Show me Proof). Things happened the way they did. There is no evidence they happened differently. I also feel that you have selected one small segment of an overall argument to worry like a dog with a bone. Is that really the only part you have a problem with?

As I said I am comparing the relative prosperity of the working class at the start of the industrial revolution and now. I am saying that IF social policy had not changed a common working man would probably not have a computer and internet access to argue with.

I know you intend no support for the bad guys. And criticism of GWB, or America in general for that matter, doesn't equal advocacy of terrorism. Dissent is generally a good thing.

Except when it doesn't make much sense. It may be hard or impossible ever to get a full picture of what has happened in Afghanistan, but I think it's really misguided to think that the Bush Administration hasn't been trying its hardest to minimize harm to innocents while still getting the best results. The Taliban are gone (almost entirely, that is, pending our last battles). That is absolutely, without question, one of the best things to have happened to Afghanistan in years. They are gone, and were kicked out at surprisingly low cost. The people in Europe and elsewhere who are shocked and agonized over the supposed desolation of Afghanistan, you would think, should be absolutely elated at that result. Especially since Europe was so belligerent in getting NATO to kick Milosevic out of Serbia at what was comparatively a much higher cost. Americans get too little thanks, I think, for the good we do in sweeping out evil regimes.

(For the record, I'm glad we got Slobodan out. Monster.)

But you can go right ahead and criticise America for helping bad regimes into power! (It just hasn't happened in the Bush Administration, or for some time, to my knowledge.)

All in all, I don't know what evidence there is for a fear that Bush will turn the world into an inferno, or that he doesn't care at all about the loss of innocent life in the course of his "crusade."

As for peace treaties (such as the ABM treaty), well, if Bush believes that we stand a better chance of being prepared militarily against rogue states without treaties solely with Russia that don't have the same justification as they once did, more power to him. And under the U.S. constitutional system, the President is _supposed_ to refuse to sign or renew a treaty if he doesn't like it. And even if he does like it, the Senate then has to ratify it. (Someone feel free to chime in further on this point.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJH:
BUSH starts global wars?
BUSH is a religious nut?

---

Yes, he does and he is.

Thanks for asking.

But I forgot, this is the same guy who defended Japan attacking Pearl Harbor so that says it all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Paddon:
Bush already has precedence on his side to unilaterally break a treaty that the Senate ratified long ago. And it was Jimmy Carter who gave him that precedent when Carter chose to unilaterally break America's 25 year defense treaty with Taiwan in 1979. So no one can argue over Bush's legal right in this instance.

---

For the record, Bush didn't legally "break" the ABM treaty, since the treaty expressly provided for withdrawl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Paddon:
Nice to see that after all the months I've spent away from this board, that the hate-America, cheer for the mass murdering terrorists are still just as sick as they always have been.

---

I don't hate America. I live on it, remember?

As for USA, I don't hate it either.
Just despise all these ignorant red-necks, who still talk about Stalin (who is reduced to dust by now) whenever someone say the truth about good old imperialism.

Come on, be serious now. How can you call a "democracy" a system ruled by only 2 parties?

1) Republicans = composed by righ-winged extremists, supported by racist groups (as KKK, White-Power), military wackos, religious nuts, the War and Tobaco Industries and all kind of fascists, child molesters and sociopaths.

2) Democrats = formed by right-centered liberals, for whom profit comes before anything, maintened by Wall Street investors, big enterprises, the Midia circus.

A real joke this so called "democracy"...
The **** is the same, only the flies are slight different! USA don't have even a "Centered" party!!

Be careful now, the 3th-world countries that are being "sucked" in the last 50 years by USA are now starting to colapse (see Argentina, for example). Soon, USA will have no more places to explore for good old Uncle Sam and his alienated citizens live in confort, whatching CNN and David Letterman while we, the undesireable people, continue to be slaughtered by the blessed "Capital".

As somoene once said: "Ignorance is a bliss".

Indeed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Paddon:
And now we've heard from the terrorists favorite ass-kisser.

---

Come on, Paddin!
We all know now that Bin-Lamen is just a CGI figure, that was probably killed several years ago.

Who are you trying to fool here?
USA needs war from time to time to justify all the budget you people pay for your great Army of GIJoes keep busy.

Pathetic, really...

quote:

---

My problems is: Bush obviously *enjoys* killing "evil guys". And he doesn't care for the innocent (unless they're American). I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to bomb a skyscraper full of civilians just to kill Bin Laden, who happens to be in it

---

I'm totally disappointed in you for saying this Marian.

You couldn't be more ignorant.

Okay, the Taliban have been routed, and any honest observer would give 100% credit to the military for doing their jobs nobly and proficiently.

But the Taliban aren't the terrorists, only the terrorists' accomodating hosts until Motel-6 Afghanistan got shut down. al-Qua'ida are the terrorists, and though some of their less-nimble members have met their ends as a consequence of the current military action, most of them are still out there, all around the world, plotting and planning, and all of Bush's posturing and speechifying will not prevent them from carrying out most of their game plan.

As for Jimmy Carter, he wasn't responsible for the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid-1970s, which is what caused the inflation during that decade, and neither he, nor that lying, cheating moron, Reagan, had the power to magically make the effects of that embargo just go away. It had to work itself out of the world economy in its own good time.

Of course, you're such a mindless Democrat-hater, Eric, that you'd blame Carter, Clinton, Gore, Daschle and any other Democrat whose name you can spell for the stock market crash of 1893, if you could.

I blame the Democrats for everything, too (with good reason)!

Yes you did, because it is a fact. Live with it. All the handwringing from liberal leaning newspapers last fall about massive casualties etc. turned out to be wrong (as always) and the war has so far been a textbook model of a successful in progress campaign. And there isn't a single reason why anyone should quibble with it at this time. Much more remains to be done but so far, it is a successful campaign and only a partisan hack like Tom Daschle and his ilk would try to put politics ahead of patriotism for the sake of desperately searching for a campaign issue.

"As for Jimmy Carter, he wasn't responsible for the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid-1970s, which is what caused the inflation during that decade"

What a crock! Jimmy Carter in 1977, three years after that embargo, came into office when there was a 3% inflation rate and he said in his own campaign that anyone with that track record didn't deserve to be president. Under Jimmy, inflation skyrocketed because he was an incompetent president who didn't have the credibility to get any kind of domestic agenda passed. So typical of the liberal left to as always never take responsibility for inept leadership on one's own watch. You need a new history lesson because the Arab oil embargo was long over by the time Jimmy came into office.

"and neither he, nor that lying, cheating moron, Reagan"

Oh how I love to see that foaming at the mouth from those who are always angry overhe success of Reagan. Victory in the Cold War (no thanks to the Democrats and their apologists for Soviet regimes and Soviet conduct), credibility restored to American defense and leadership, and unprecedented prosperity caused by letting the people keep more of their tax money. And as for lying, cheating morons that describes the last President, not Reagan since after all only the Slickmeister ever committed perjury, ever cheated, and showed repeatedly what a moron he was on all things.

"Of course, you're such a mindless Democrat-hater, Eric, that you'd blame Carter, Clinton, Gore, Daschle and any other Democrat whose name you can spell for the stock market crash of 1893, if you could."

quote:

---

Originally posted by perfpitch:
You are a bitter, angry, hollow shell of a man, Paddon...

---

Tsk, tsk. I'm afraid that only those who use such inane terms as "lying, cheating, moron" to describe the most successful US President post-1961 are the ones who are clearly angry and bitter, because they're too bitter over the fact that their ideas got repudiated at the ballot box. As for me, I don't blame the American people for the Slickmeister nor do I whitewash the failings of my side which made him possible.

If I call someone neo-nazi, treehugging, mother raping bastard born of an incestous union bewteen and liberal and a conservative sticking a smiley face behind doesn't mean damn thing.

See. I'll prove it.

quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCimmerian:
I bet that George W. does not have a copy of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES.

---

Although I bet he has a copy of 'Titanic'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Paddon:
In the meantime, I resolve to keep smiling and laughing all the way at those like Andre and Perfpitch.

---

Just like good old Adolf Hitler and Stalin laughed at those who didn't agree with them.

Fascist pigs love to laugh while others try to build a better world...

But I doubt Eric Paddin will ever get the message.

First, because he doesn't know what sex is.
Second, because he's the kind of wacko who cheers for Darth Vadder and the Empire!

Andre despises the United States...wow...that's news. Perfpitch is blasting the Republican administration...that's a new one on this board. A couple other folks desperately try and defend the actions of their country...but in the end let their emotions get the better of them. Not surprising.

My only response would be...the Taliban has been removed from power in Afganistan and because of that tomorrow schools will reopen, and some children will go for the first time. That in and of itself has made the endeavor worthwhile. I don't pretend to believe that my country is led by saints and that our actions have always been honorable--but the fact remains that the foundations this country is built upon are sound.

Go ahead and step our form of democracy--that's your right. "RIGHT"...something a few more people around the world might get to enjoy now.

But heh...why listen to me. I'm a registered Republican so I must be a left wing, KKK, baby killer right? Wow--I'm jealous that I can't live in such a black and white, discriminatory la-la land too. Call me when a room opens up.

But let's get this conversation going in the right direction--what would be the best score for this dialogue? Something understated yet powerful...suggestions.

In the meantime...PeterK is right...this is a perfect example while the previous thread was closed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Andre despises the United States...wow...that's news.

---

Let me clarify this issue once again, for the mind impaired: I don't despise USA - the land, the citizens, the culture, etc. I just don't (CAN'T) agree with such things as racism, imperialism and the big stick policy USA Government follow.

Ok, I know a lot of USA citizens THINK this kind of policy is good for them and for the rest of the world. But it is not good for anybody.
Propaganda and manipulation make people dumb and full of hatred - and that's why they support such crap and still believe their are "heroes".

Hitler, thanks to his propaganda minister Goebels, did the same thing in Germany. Germans were driven to believe that Jews, blacks and other "inferior" (sic!) human beings were the cause of German's misery at the time and, therefore, it was "right" to kill them all.

quote:

---

My only response would be...the Taliban has been removed from power in Afganistan and because of that tomorrow schools will reopen, and some children will go for the first time. [/B]

---

See? The typical naive and misinformed person who get proud of saying such imbecility.

The Taliban was composed by the MAJORITY of the Afeghan people. You don't agree with their beliefs and the way they rule their OWN country? Fine, that's your right. But then to start an attack upon that country... That's a whole different story. If you agree with it, then Anyone is entitled to do the same in Ucle Sam's land, right???

Now, the Taliban was slaughtered and the "North Aliance" took control through force - more than 6 thousand civilians were killed by Uncle Sam's army.
This "North Aliance", BTW, is composed by the minority of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan and, worst of all, by oppium dealers and smugglers.

The "ethnic cleaning" already started in that far country, but I doubt CNN will ever show it... Washington achieve its goal - to control yet another country - and now **** the rest.

Again--trying to prove that removing the Taliban from power would any way worsen the state of Afghanistan or the world is a futile battle. Simpy because it just ain't so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by perfpitch:
Yeah? And you're chief apologist for Ronnie R.'s pissing on the Constitution.

You and that shriveled old pirate deserve each other. I hope there's room in the bed for you between him and Nancy.

---

ROTFLMAO!

Boy, the truth really hurts doesn't it? That's why we never see a rational argument against winning the Cold War, letting people keep their tax dollars and unprecedented prosperity from you.

As the old cliche goes, the person who has the facts on his side bangs on the facts (that's me) and the person who doesn't just bangs on the table and rants and raves with his disgusting hate-filled crapola (that's you).

Oh yes you do. You hate the USA, and you are an ass-kissing bootlicker for every totalitarian thug regime that has ever chosen to make war against the USA. Bottom line with Andre: "Anyone who kills Americans, and who seeks to impose totalitariansm is my hero!"

"Hitler, thanks to his propaganda minister Goebels, did the same thing in Germany.":

Andre spare us your phony anti-Hitler comments. You've already been a bootlicker for Hitler's ally Imperial Japan, so that means that if anyone's earned the right to be called a Hitler lover, it's the person who defends the country that was his ally and not the people from the country that gave tens of thousands of their lives to defeat him.

"The Taliban was composed by the MAJORITY of the Afeghan people."

Now look who's borrowing from the Goebbles handbook. The bottom line with Andre is whenever I want to make a point about why I hate America, just lie.

"But then to start an attack upon that country... That's a whole different story. If you agree with it, then Anyone is entitled to do the same in Ucle Sam's land, right???"

More BS from the same person who defended Pearl Harbor and who now wants to spread the lie that 9/11 was not an act of war. What a sick comment from a sick human being.

"This "North Aliance", BTW, is composed by the minority of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan and, worst of all, by oppium dealers and smugglers."

Add the Taliban to the latest list of totalitarian thug regimes that Andre idolizes and will gladly be a bootlicker for. Whether Hitler's Germany, Imperial Japan, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban, they are all okay with Andre Lux so long as the United States of America opposes them. What a nice group of mass murdering butcherers you like to associate with, Andre. I think we don't need any other clue as to what would happen if you were ever a political leader. You would willingly harbor terrorists like Bin Laden, and you would encourage them to committ more terrorism against the US.

As I watch the memorial towers of light being lit in NYC at this moment, I receive another reminder of the near loss of a family member in the WTC, and the loss of a college classmate on Flight 93, and how proud I am that the United States government has seen to it that the sacrifice of the heroes and victims of 9/11 is not in vain by taking decisive action against those responsible for waging their barbarism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Again--trying to prove that removing the Taliban from power would any way worsen the state of Afghanistan or the world is a futile battle. Simpy because it just ain't so.

---

Yes, it's futile. But that's not what I was asking.
So let me rephrase it: Just because Washington don't like the Taliban anylonger (remember that it was USA who put them to rule Afghanistan in the first place), does it mean it have the right to invade and destroy everything?

If your answer is "Yes", them Osama Bin Laden or whoever have the same right to invade USA and destroy everything, since they don't agree with your government.

Plain and simple.