Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 13:08:16

Halloween Political Cartoons

Hmm, the link seems dead...

Now, I just have this bad taste from fighting the anti-Bush attacks today and I don't even like the guy when you get down to it.

Confession time. Even assuming dictatorial powers, had it been my decision I most likely would not have invaded Iraq. Turning Afghanistan into a secure and well-fed protectorate, root out every last warlord, and slowly acclimate them to a republican (small "r") form of government, meanwhile turning eyes toward Iran to pressure the Mullah's to the breaking point. Years later, then Iraq's number comes up. But we're past that, the question is no longer whether to fight a war in Iraq but how to fight that war. How can we be the best occupying power we can be?

Bush went in there like Alexander, then somewhere along the line turned into McClellan. Except McClellan was better at building stuff. Firing the entire Iraqi army? Foolish, do something with them, even if it's just BS to keep them occupied. Put 'em along the Syrian border to stop Jihadis from getting in. But we didn't. If you start to take Fallujah, take Fallujah. Unless you're with this Administration, then you back off and open a dialogue. The blunder cannot now be undone. Missing explosives? Bah! We've destroyed thousands of tons of munitions and explosives, to expect that we can secure everything that goes boom in the whole country is crazy. It's a war, the enemy doesn't check in whenever they move around. Nor do various units of our military as much as we'd like. We might have destroyed the very explosives now claimed to be missing. Just wrecking everything.

We can deal with the terrorists in Iraq in basically two ways, we can bring in tens if not hundreds of thousands of new troops, lock down the entire country, and try to fix the whole mess all at once. Or, we can take a less "national" approach. Civil war can achieve this (unless Bush stays in "McClellan" mode, of course) but so can a reallocation of our forces there. The problems we are having are largely a result of the ease with which we took the country in the first place. We ended up starting the occupation before the war was really over, the army just disintegrated and there we were, standing in front of Saddam's palace in Baghdad wondering what the hell happened to all the block-by-block city fighting we wargamed for.

Maybe we still have to do it. When we find a stronghold, Fallujah or Najaf, go in and deal with it using whatever force is required, secure the city, then bring in Iraqi forces to hold it. If they get slammed, bail them out but focus on the next stronghold. This approach not only requires a much smaller (if any) troop increase but keeps our operations much more localized, making us less an occupier in some sense. It also forces terrorists elswhere to attack Iraqi's operating under their own leadership with no direct tie to Coalition forces. No Infidels here, just fellow Muslims you don't happen to agree with. Kinda muddles the ol' Jihad doesn't it?

Point being, we now have to either increase numbers, decrease restraint, or get creative in the underlying approach. Maybe it's time to stop looking at Iraq so much as a country and more like a series of populated regions within a web of complex religious, ethnic, economic and social connections.

And that same web crosses the lines labeled "Iran" and "Syria" and "Saudi Arabia"...

Palomar · 2004-10-29 13:11:53

Halloween Political Cartoons
Hmm, the link seems dead...

*It's working for me (after I posted it and now). Here's the address:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Hallowe … 4/main.asp

These are a abit of a slooow download if other stuff is running...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-10-29 13:49:42

Although I have argued for Democracy vs. Republic from a philosophical point of view, one Republican party supporter pointed out that my economic views are match the Republican party. Since Cobra Commander is taking such a Machiavellian approach and other Americans don’t appear to object, here’s a cold-hearted point of view:

Iraqis have been beheading western contractors so deal with them by pulling out suddenly. It’ll leave Iraq in chaos lead to civil war; don’t they deserve that?

Palomar · 2004-10-29 13:57:45

Since Cobra Commander is taking such a Machiavellian approach and other Americans don’t appear to object, here’s a cold-hearted point of view:
Iraqis have been beheading western contractors so deal with them by pulling out suddenly. It’ll leave Iraq in chaos lead to civil war; don’t they deserve that?

*I'll bite (please forgive a bit of repetition):

First, I still wish Pres. Bush would have stayed the course with Afghanistan and routing out Al-Qaeda.

I still have a lot of doubts about the Iraqi war.

I don't believe the Iraqis deserve a civil war; I hope they don't have a civil war.

We are already there for 1-1/2 years. Can't unscramble eggs. :-\

What would you have the U.S. gov't do right this moment if you had it in -your- power, Robert?

--Cindy

::edit:: And what about the involvement of the UK and other nations in the Iraqi war effort? Are they our puppets? What if those governments genuinely thought the war was necessary? Are *we all* too right to be wrong in our own ways?

RobertDyck · 2004-10-29 14:41:34

What would you have the U.S. gov't do right this moment if you had it in -your- power, Robert?

Actually, I'm serious. First I would never have gone into Iraq. Considering Al Qaeda was the same organization that truck-bombed the WTC, why did it take 3 months to discover they were responsible for 9/11? Second, when the Taliban asked for proof that Al Qaeda did it, they were the government of Afghanistan so that was a legitimate request. The response should have been to pull out any operatives that would be compromised by the report, then give it to the Taliban with the warning that they have 24 hours to either hand over Al Qaeda or give the US permission to get them. Third, when NATO unanimously offered to come to the defence of the US, I would have accepted. Make it a NATO action. Fourth, when the UN Security Council explicitly said not to go into Iraq, that means don't go into Iraq.

Now the U.S. government is in one hell of a mess. There isn't a clean easy answer, because anything clean or easy would have started with "don't go to war with Iraq". Any Iraqi government that the US-led coalition puts in place is a puppet of that coalition; it doesn't represent the people of Iraq. Because it is being put in place by military force, there will be civil war until it falls. That's inevitable. The only legitimate government must be decided by the people of Iraq, and put in place by the people of Iraq. That means both the form of government as well as details like who are the officials. It's imperative that all coalition nations have no say what so ever. The factions within Iraq will argue, and they haven't learned how to come to consensus without a dictator pointing a gun at them, so civil war will happen. But if the US or any coalition nation attempts to peacefully put a government in place, Iraqis will fight against it first then fight with each other for control. Pulling out now avoids the unified fight against you, and lets the second phase of civil war start. It's inevitable, so let them have at it. The humane thing to do would be removal of all weapons of war such as tanks, fighter jets, missiles, artillery, WMDs, and explosives. Let them use hand weapons so they have to see their opponent's eyes.

Remember, when Canada invented the "Peace Keeping Action" it started with a policy of staying out of it until both sides were desperate enough. The meek will inherit the Earth after the aggressive ones have slaughtered each other.

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-29 15:06:17

New OBL video... wow. Bush got owned again, by Osama himself.

BWhite · 2004-10-29 15:23:55

Gosh darn it Cobra, why did you have to turn reasonable?

But since we cannot unscramble eggs, part of fixing things is admitting the FUBARs and then resolving that we cannot leave until an acceptable end state is defined and accomplished.

But unless we admit the orignal FUBAR, how can define an end-state that is both desirable for the US and credible to the Iraqis (and thus feasible)?

In all honesty, I believe Bush is more likely to cut and run from Iraq (with some BS excuse as cover) than Kerry. Especially since Kerry can whine "Bush broke it and now I have to fix it" - - that buys Kerry credibility (and money?) from others.

Give the damn French and Russians cellphone and oil contracts and promise we will help the new Iraq honor old debt IF AND ONLY IF a stable secular Iraq emerges. Chirac can send 50,000 soldiers on January 15th and smirk as he sticks a finger in GWB's eye.

America does a Thomas Beckett (google for the history) throw GWB to the wolves of the French press and return to the plan Cobra has often described for winning the entire Middle East.

Palomar · 2004-10-29 15:31:19

*Reply to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … n_tape]bin Laden.

God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers

*Liar.

directly admitted for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks

*Big of you to admit it...finally.

If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example

*I'm glad you didn't attack Sweden. Here's one reason at least you chose to attack the U.S. instead of Sweden: We're richer, more prosperous...and you're jealous and anti-progress.

It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones

*Considering they hate freedom and wish to deprive others of it, by your own logic then they are UNdignified souls. Oh, and care to tell us WHY all 19 hijackers weren't aware it was a suicide mission they were on? Only the actual "pilots" knew it was a suicide mission; your other "blessed ones" figured it was simply a terrorist hijacking. What if they didn't want to die? You resort to deceit and trickery with your own "blessed ones." Woe to us "infidels" (Friends like you/who needs enemies). Murderers are "blessed ones." Sure...not. (::edit:: And what is your definition of "freedom" anyway, Mr. Submit to Allah or Be Killed, Infidel -- ? ::end edit::)

Muslims' security...our people

*Yes, you are a collectivist. The worst sort. Maybe you're not aware that many of your own "fellow Muslims" deride and denounce you, and claim you DON'T represent true Islam in any manner? Your own family disowns you. Looks like you don't speak for Muslims any more than I do.

Keep trying to convince yourself, you deluded genocidal sh!t for brains.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-29 15:37:35

We're richer, more prosperous...and you're jealous and anti-progress.

If only it were that simple...

Palomar · 2004-10-29 16:00:00

We're richer, more prosperous...and you're jealous and anti-progress.
If only it were that simple...

*You snipped too soon. I also said:

Here's one reason at least you chose to attack the U.S. instead of Sweden...

*Of course, I suppose it's all our fault bin Laden has voiced a genocidal desire to kill every man, woman and child in the U.S.

I suppose we can't expect him to be responsible for his own actions and reactions, and the decisions he makes. We're supposed to take the higher road of ethics and civility...god forbid it be expected of anyone else though.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-10-29 16:03:54

*Yes, you are a collectivist. The worst sort. Maybe you're not aware that many of your own "fellow Muslims" deride and denounce you, and claim you DON'T represent true Islam in any manner? Your own family disowns you. Looks like you don't speak for Muslims any more than I do.

100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would tend to reduce Islamic hatred for bin Laden.

= = =

Saw this comment elsewhere. I also saw both video clips and I agree:

But Bush looked awful--like he did in the first debate, only scared. He really doesn't do well under pressure. Kerry was in command as always. If body language means anything, I know which person I want to lead...

= = =

A CNN analyst just offered this:

All bin Laden is really saying is "I'm tanned, rested and ready"

So what the bleep has GWB been doing these last few years? Just kill the SOB already.

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-29 16:30:27

*Of course, I suppose it's all our fault bin Laden has voiced a genocidal desire to kill every man, woman and child in the U.S.

No, but I don't buy the tried and true "they hate us because we're better" argument. It's too simplistic. There are hundreds of countries in the world, many of which are absolutely jealous of the US (many of which are perpetually paying back loans to the US, and never getting ahead economically; how often have you been frustrated with bills to an ungrateful landlord and such?). But they aren't attacking the US, are they? It's silly to say that that is even a reason in my opinion, because it simply doesn't happen.

This is largely a religious war. Jews vs Osama. The US is directly responsible for the Israeli state, and directly pays for the Israeli army. This ought not become an argument about Israel, but I honestly have no reason to believe it's as simple as "penis envy," or that "penis envy" plays that large of a role at all.

BTW, why doesn't anyone comment that Bush gave in to several of Bin Ladens original demands? Like moving a military presence out of Saudi Arabia? Doesn't that bother you? It bothers me.

BWhite · 2004-10-29 17:03:10

Only one question matters: Why isn't OBL dead?

RobertDyck · 2004-10-29 18:38:25

A new video from OSB. I would like to say there are two aspects to defence: don't incite attack on the US, and don't let someone who has attacked get away with it. That means don't attack middle-east countries, or anyone else, but al-Qaeda has already shed American blood so they have to be taken out. Focus the entire might of the US military on the single point called al-Qaeda. What I really want to see is Osama bin Laden captured alive. Death in combat is too quick for him; make him stand trial, a prolonged agonizing trial and have to face the families of his victims. America has the death penalty, so in the end televise his execution.

Euler · 2004-10-29 20:40:02

There are hundreds of countries in the world, many of which are absolutely jealous of the US (many of which are perpetually paying back loans to the US, and never getting ahead economically; how often have you been frustrated with bills to an ungrateful landlord and such?). But they aren't attacking the US, are they? It's silly to say that that is even a reason in my opinion, because it simply doesn't happen.

That is the way that it used to be. Unfortunately, the US itself is now has a major net external debt. Now the US owes money to most of the other countries.

While there is some envy among other countries, I don't think that that is the major reason for terrorism. The terrorism comes from supporting governments in the Middle East (especially Israel) that are unpopular with the terrorists. If we did not interfere in the affairs of the ME countries, there would be far fewer people angry enough at the US that they would be willing to kill themselves to get revenge.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-29 21:07:41

I think the Iraq war has been misreported here in Australia by a biased media ever since it started. I remember it was going to be a protracted and bloody war lasting months, with hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Baghdad.
None of that happened, of course, and the mobile strategic phase of the war only took, what was it, three weeks in the end?

Up until recently, even anti-war activists never seemed to put the Iraqi civilian casualties any higher than about 20,000. Many thought the figure probably never got much higher than 10,000.
Now, out of the blue, (strangely close to the U.S. election) it's a nice round figure of 100,000. It's very hard to know how these statistics are compiled and how accurate any of them are. Considering the bile being generated by the upcoming election in America, I'm put in mind of the old "lies, damned lies, and statistics" axiom.
In any event, you have to subtract from that figure the number of Iraqis routinely butchered by their illustrious leader during an equivalent 18-month period, and the number of Iraqi children who would have been casualties of the endless U.N. sanctions in that same timeframe. (I notice there are figures in the 100s of thousands, 500,000 was it?, for child deaths from the failure of the oil-for-food program, which the most raucous of the anti-war protesters were curiously much quieter about at New Mars before 2003.)

There are various numbers bandied about for the hard line terrorists thought to be active in certain areas of Iraq, too. I've seen figures of 2000 and, in some of the more wild-eyed leftist press, even 20,000.
However many are involved, if we keep killing them, we'll eventually make progress. In this regard, I agree with Bill and CC that mistakes have been made and we need to be much more aggressive. We really have no alternative but to go in hard, despite the risk to civilians. The terrorists hide behind the ordinary people who, consequently, are partially to blame for their own predicament in that they don't inform on these murderers or rise up against them. It's their war, too, after all, and they have the biggest stake in its eventual success.

The biggest problem at present, of course, is the support being given to the terrorists inside Iraq by Iran and Syria. Although we should be able to give Iraq its democratic freedom by early 2005, stability is constantly endangered by those two pariah states, together with extremist Saudi elements.
Sooner or later, that problem will have to be dealt with. And, as I've mentioned in another post, the Iranian question is becoming more urgent day by day because of their imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons. In retrospect, I think it may have been more desirable to liberate Iran first, before turning our attention to Iraq, but that's just idle speculation at this point in the game.

Anyhow, once Iraq is returned to Iraqi rule next year, and security is largely in the hands of its own police forces and military, Coalition forces will be freed up and available for other tasks.
Assuming President Bush retains office, and perhaps with an increased mandate (still the most likely outcome according to the bookies - and they don't often get it wrong), how do you people see the Iranian situation being dealt with?
As I understand it, no progress has been made in persuading Tehran's mullahs to abandon their nuclear weapons aspirations, so we can soon expect even the duplicitous Europeans to back U.N. action of some sort. Surely, even the self-interested U.N. equivocators club will realise economic sanctions are pointless and that much more decisive action is vital.
With Coalition forces available, with U.N. backing, and perhaps with NATO reinforcements contributing, how quickly do you think we can neutralise Iran? Bear in mind, we haven't much time to solve this problem.
???

[P.S. Is it true that Iran is seeking to acquire three nuclear submarines? I read it somewhere but can't find the article now.]
[P.P.S. The West is a target for terrorism now, and has been for some 20 years, so I'm not concerned any more about stirring up Muslim extremists. I don't believe this is a valid reason or excuse for soft-pedalling our actions in the Middle East. I think it's time to take off the gloves and I just hope the Europeans will abandon their extraordinary anti-Americanism and wake up to who the real enemy is. If they imagine they can somehow curry favour with Islamofascists by opposing the U.S., I'm afraid they will have a very much ruder awakening to look forward to. The terrorists have stated they're not looking for concessions from the West, their aim is to destroy us - simple.]

RobertDyck · 2004-10-29 22:59:31

OMG, Shaun is actually advocating initiating aggressive action against Iran? The U.N. was created specifically to prevent that sort of thing. You can't claim the other guy is trying to destroy you when they haven't launched an assault but you have. How many countries have Iraq or Iran attacked in the last decade? How many have the U.S. or Australia?

Most importantly, hasn't anyone learned their lesson from Iraq? Isn't 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and 1,112 Americans enough? You know the situation in Iraq isn't going to get any better. Vietnam didn't.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-30 01:33:24

RobertDyck:-

How many countries (has) .. Iran attacked in the last decade?

Um, let me see. Indirectly:-
America - Marine barracks in Lebanon 1983
- WTC bombing 1993
- U.S. installations in Saudi 1995 & 1996
- East Africa embassy bombings 1998
- USS Cole 2000
- WTC destruction 2001

Iraq - Almost daily attacks on innocent Iraqi
civilians 2003 onwards.

Israel - Countless incidences perpetrated by
Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah

Russia - Numerous attacks, most recently and
horrifically Beslan 2004

Spain - The Madrid bombing

Whether the Iranian mullahs pulled the trigger themselves, planted the explosives themselves, flew the plane into the building themselves, fired the rocket themselves, or 'merely' harboured, trained, financed, or otherwise aided and supported in whatever way, the ones who did, they are guilty of attacks against those countries.
By any measure I know of, those are persistent acts of war by an Islamic dictatorship against democracies or would-be democracies.

What has the U.N. ever done about it? Nothing.
What is the U.N. doing about the Islamic sponsored genocide in Sudan? Effectively, nothing.
What do we hear about this sickening ethnic cleansing in Darfur from the left-wing media, compared to the uproar about the liberation of Iraq? Almost nothing.
Does anyone here ever wonder why? (Think about it.)

As CC points out, you can sit back and absorb hit after hit after hit or you can stand up and do something.
How long do you want to wait, Robert, while the impotent U.N. wags its collective finger at a totally intransigent Iran? A year? Two years? A decade?
How comfortable are you with the idea of Islamic religious lunatics, who answer to no one but Allah, possessing medium range missiles with nuclear warheads? Maybe it's just me but I do tend to get nervous.
:;):

What do you suggest we do?

RobertDyck · 2004-10-30 03:34:03

You're confusing completely different organizations. Al Qaeda is responsible for all of the attacks on America, except the barracks in Lebanon 1983; I don't know who's responsible for that one. Al Qaeda is also responsible for the incidents in Russia and Spain. Remember I said focus on taking out Al Qaeda?

The Kurds in northern Iraq had participated with Iranian forces against the Iraq military, then assisted the U.S. military in 1991. Think how any government would look at a group of its own citizens fighting with a foreign invader against their own military. That's treason. How did America treat its own citizens at Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge? They didn't threaten anyone, just built-up a cache of arms in case it became necessary. Post mortem investigation found no illegal weapons at either site. If America is willing to slaughter its own citizens, why criticize Iraq for taking out a faction that already assisted two invading armies?

Israel: That's a conflict that has been going on for more than two millennia. In recent times Israel has perpetrated as many atrocities against Arab neighbors as the reverse. But the point is Iraq wasn't involved, that's other countries and their factions.

Russia also has an issue with Chechnya trying to separate, and using terrorist tactics. That's an internal matter for Russia. The only time any Muslim got involved it was Al Qaeda. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

This comes back to what I've been saying: know your enemy. If you thrash around at everyone in the world you'll just loose allies and make new enemies. Find who is attacking and take out just them. All the attacks against America since 1984 have been by Al Qaeda, so take them out. You asked me how long do we want to wait; I'll throw that question right back at you. How long do you want to wait before taking out Al Qaeda?

Palomar · 2004-10-30 05:11:56

*Hey guys?

What's the point of discussing the Presidential Elections anymore?

Because of the U.S. policy towards Palestine/Israel it doesn't matter WHO is elected President. Bin Laden says it doesn't matter if Kerry's elected or Bush is elected (or Twinkles the Clown or Tom Cruise...)...

Oh yeah, I know it does matter to us...we need the best leader possible...but...

They're going to strike and continue striking.

It doesn't matter WHO is the next U.S. President, according to OBL. According to him, we're beyond redemption. We're f*cked.

Doesn't matter if Kerry looks commanding or Bush looks like a jittery nincompoop or whatever.

Doesn't matter who sits in the Oval Office.

So why continue the Kerry vs Bush thing?

If someone holds a big sharp knife to my throat and tells me they're going to slit it no matter what, my only choices are to start fighting like hell or say my prayers.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-10-30 05:14:23

*Yes, you are a collectivist. The worst sort. Maybe you're not aware that many of your own "fellow Muslims" deride and denounce you, and claim you DON'T represent true Islam in any manner? Your own family disowns you. Looks like you don't speak for Muslims any more than I do.
100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would tend to reduce Islamic hatred for bin Laden.

*Many Muslims I've read about and heard speaking denounce him. He has been disowned by his family, etc.

As for the Muslims who can't or won't admit/acknowledge that U.S. forces in Iraq try to keep civilian causalities to a MINIMUM...what can I say? Their fundie religious leaders would slaughter every American if they had it in their power, without blinking an eye or shedding a tear. That's hypocrisy.

Perspective.

And unless my memory fails me (read the article yesterday, it's very early a.m. currently and I'm still half asleep), Bin Laden says the crux of the issue is Palestine/Israel. I doubt he gives a flying f*ck about innocent Iraqi civilians dead. He's an opportunist who enjoys the spotlight and his power. Guys like that claim "my people, my people"...every tyrant cops out on that, but they only truly care about themselves (getting more power) and their little lap dogs (while they can be used).

All the airliner hijackings, rapes and murders of innocent Western civilians, pilots and stewardesses aboard those airliners -- all throughout the 1970s and 1980s -- haven't made me overly sympathetic fundie Muslims. But then I'm not overly fond of fundie religionists of any stripe.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-10-30 05:39:20

You're confusing completely different organizations. Al Qaeda is responsible for all of the attacks on America, except the barracks in Lebanon 1983;
How did America treat its own citizens at Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge? They didn't threaten anyone, just built-up a cache of arms in case it became necessary. Post mortem investigation found no illegal weapons at either site. If America is willing to slaughter its own citizens, why criticize Iraq for taking out a faction that already assisted two invading armies?

*I consider the airline hijackings and related violence of the 1970s and 1980s an attack on America. Was that al-Qaeda?

As for Waco and Ruby Ridge: I'm more familiar with the details of the former rather than the latter. Yes, unfortunate.

But Robert, you make it sound like the U.S. Federal government is leading a wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter on its citizens continually, left and right. I don't see that happening and I've lived here for 39-1/2 years.

If you consider those two unfortunate incidents as being equal in severity to all the crap fanatical Islamic extremists have put us and other nations through... :hm: (:edit: Also, how many of his own citizens did Saddam Hussein have tortured and murdered? Lots more than unfortunately wound up dead at Waco or RR. Isn't that bothersome as well? :end edit:)

Al-Qaeda is one of the predominant militant fundie Islamic terrorist group. There are others in the background, ready to step up to the plate...if they had the funding and weapons.

Can't recall the name of those yahoo's in Palestine...gotta get back to work.

--Cindy

P.S.: Shaun, your responses have been excellent. Haven't some of our choices been pro-active as defense goes? Isn't that sometimes necessary? Robert, the UN -is- impotent and generally worthless. All I have to say is SUDAN/DARFUR.

It's wrong when and if the US violates UN guidelines. But it's okay for Iran to violate UN agreements to build up nuclear capability? What?

See the double standard?

BWhite · 2004-10-30 07:17:06

*Yes, you are a collectivist. The worst sort. Maybe you're not aware that many of your own "fellow Muslims" deride and denounce you, and claim you DON'T represent true Islam in any manner? Your own family disowns you. Looks like you don't speak for Muslims any more than I do.
100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would tend to reduce Islamic hatred for bin Laden.
*Many Muslims I've read about and heard speaking denounce him. He has been disowned by his family, etc.
As for the Muslims who can't or won't admit/acknowledge that U.S. forces in Iraq try to keep civilian causalities to a MINIMUM...what can I say?

Well, we have two choices.

Either figure out WHAT to say to the fathers and mothers of a-political Iraqi parents who have had young children killed by JDAMS (and dismissed by us as acceptable collateral damage), or

we just accept that we need to kill them all.

If we follow your advice, and merely shrug (Too bad, so sad, we really are doing the best we can), well, we better start making more bullets and bombs, really fast.

= = =

Fair is irrelevant.

Did you see how politically astute bin Laden was?

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone

First, he is lying. Second, if you are an Iraqi civilian, bin Laden's message will be damn tempting. And since we only speak English (too few translators) there is no one to counter bin Laden's propaganda.

Palomar · 2004-10-30 07:39:44

If we follow your advice, and merely shrug (Too bad, so sad, we really are doing the best we can),

*I haven't shrugged off a thing (and you snipped my comments too short).

I'm tired of this. According to popular world opinion:

Apparently America is/has been always evil and horrible, the other guy has always been misunderstood and picked on.

Apparently we should have let the fundie Palestinians round up and slaughter all the Israelis ala Nazi Germany. Who are we to decide foreign policy?

We are already in Iraq. We have been there for 1-1/2 years.
I also doubt the rationale of our being there. Can't unscramble eggs. We're continuing a pointless argument here. Shall we next begin arguing about the wisdom and logic of the Battle of Waterloo?

It is oh-so-easy for some non-U.S. Western nations to naively nurture the notion that if we just all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya," everything will be hunkey-dorey. The UN is the savior (let's ask the hundreds of thousands of victims of genocide, maiming, rape and starvation in Sudan/Darfur how much the UN really gives a damn).

It is oh-so-easy for some non-U.S. Western nations to deride and criticize everything the U.S. does with its power (**which, yes, is sometimes in the WRONG**...but not always), acting as if they're oh-so morally superior and on the higher road when in fact they -don't- possess the power to truly test how morally superior they really are.

Bin Laden has said it doesn't matter who is President.

So it looks like we're down for the count.

I'm disturbed by the continual double standard being applied against the U.S. for every frickin' little thing. Yes...let's let Iran build nuclear weapons, etc.; Iran's leaders only mean well...they're wonderful and trustworthy (the same nation which has children chanting "Death to America!" in its classrooms every morning). The UN won't do anything about it (again...it's only wrong if the U.S. steps out of line...not those other wonderful nations), we shouldn't do anything about it, so I guess I'll try and sleep at night anyway.

And no, Bill, your two options as Iraq goes aren't the only two options.

--Cindy

::edit:: There's a big difference between the times we've done wrong and the times we're being guilt-induced into thinking we've done more wrong than we actually have. IMO, more Americans should learn to discern between the two...and quickly.

We are facing extraordinary amounts of guilt induction (forget the times we've helped other nations back up on their feet after messes in the past which *they* got themselves into; all the $ we've handed out and food, on and on). And there's always a motive behind it (which always seeks for the selfish, self-seeking benefit of the guilt inductor).

Learn to discern.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-30 07:56:01

Hear hear !!
I agree with Cindy; the double standard is becoming sickening.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-10-29 13:08:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#177 2004-10-29 13:11:53

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#178 2004-10-29 13:49:42

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#179 2004-10-29 13:57:45

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#180 2004-10-29 14:41:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#181 2004-10-29 15:06:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#182 2004-10-29 15:23:55

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#183 2004-10-29 15:31:19

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#184 2004-10-29 15:37:35

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#185 2004-10-29 16:00:00

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#186 2004-10-29 16:03:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#187 2004-10-29 16:30:27

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#188 2004-10-29 17:03:10

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#189 2004-10-29 18:38:25

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#190 2004-10-29 20:40:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#191 2004-10-29 21:07:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#192 2004-10-29 22:59:31

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#193 2004-10-30 01:33:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#194 2004-10-30 03:34:03

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#195 2004-10-30 05:11:56

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#196 2004-10-30 05:14:23

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#197 2004-10-30 05:39:20

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#198 2004-10-30 07:17:06

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#199 2004-10-30 07:39:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#200 2004-10-30 07:56:01

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer