Good debate

[TA Pilot]

If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?

So... the terrorists aren't flocking to Iraq?
Doesnt this undermine the argument that "there weren;t terrorists in Iraq until we invaded"?


Right now we are building military bases in Iraq.

At the behest of and with the permission of the Iraqi government.

How would we feel if another country started building bases in Texas?  Resentment can be a powerful emotion.

If our government said it was OK?




Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.

They -were- until they figured out that when they do, they get slaughtered.

[Crazy Cooter]

My feeling is: No, the terrorists are not flocking to Iraq.  It's the members of local "warlords" and such fighting to protect what they have.  IMO, Saddam did not rule Iraq in the traditional sense of the word.  He let the local dudes run their own show.  Kind of like a mob.  If they stepped too far out of line, they got wacked.  Otherwise, as long as they paid tribute to him, they could do what they wanted.  Now they are in a fight for territory and power with a common enemy.  Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?  Terrorists do not stand out in the open to fight.  They hide out.  btw: I've never said there wasn't terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.  They're here, they're there, they're everywhere.  So said the great Doctor Seuss.

Your arguement about the Iraqi government is circular.  The current government was placed there by us, of course it will give us permission to do what we want.  Would we have put someone in power that didn't agree with what we wanted to do?  My point isn't with the permission of the government, it's with the views of the Iraqi people.  How do THEY see what we are doing?  If they see us in a bad light, what are their other options?  Side with one of the local warlords in a fight for power or turn to terrorism.

[Floyd10]

Im with smart ^^^

[TA Pilot]

You know, of course, that there is a significant non-Iraqi AQ component to the insurgency, right?


Now they are in a fight for territory and power with a common enemy.  Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?  Terrorists do not stand out in the open to fight.  They hide out.

Nor do the insurgents.   If they did, they'd be called an "army".  



The current government was placed there by us, of course it will give us permission to do what we want.  Would we have put someone in power that didn't agree with what we wanted to do?

Just like in Japan and Germany.   Whats the point?



My point isn't with the permission of the government, it's with the views of the Iraqi people.  How do THEY see what we are doing?

The people in general, or the insurgents?

Why would the people of Iraq want to live under another Ba'athist government?  Or a Iran-style Theocracy?

[shmokes]

We were attacked, which is our fault, we acted, and this will bring more attacks, which is our fault

Oh god....not you too, Drew.  I know full well that you don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  "We were attacked....we acted???"  You know better.  For the love of god, can't you see that nobody here has made the slightest criticism about the war in Afghanistan aside from the fact that we should have sent and still should have a much larger presence there.

This isn't about the dems not wanting to protect our country from threats.  We just seem to be the only ones who can get it through our heads that Iraq was not a problem.  Is there some fantastic hypothetical situation where they could one day be a problem?  Yes.  But we've got some pretty damn big problems RIGHT NOW.  Such as Al Queida, Suadi's in particular, crashing jets into our World Trade Centers.  You can go on your what if Saddam did this, what if Saddam did that until your blue in the face.  But I have the luxury of not needing to make my case by saying, "What if Al Queida blows up the two tallest buildings in New York City with 3000 people inside," if that can be called a luxury.  I don't need to use hypotheticals.

You know...I'm changing my position on Gun Control.  I think they should all be legal, but that republicans should just not be allowed to own them.  You people have no idea how to be responsible with your weapons.  And you suffer from dillusional paranoia.

[DrewKaree]

Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?

Nope, I never read a newspaper, or for that matter, listen to CNN.  Now, please post your answer to my solution, as those few sentences failed to state that my solution, based on your "facts" is either right, in your view, or wrong, in your view.

In case you missed it:

Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.

[Grasshopper]

Interesting thread.

A lot of people here are presuming to know what the Iraqi people actually want.

When the Iraqis are given the chance to vote in 'free and fair' elections (assuming they ever are) will they be given a genuine choice? I'm not optimistic given that citizens of many western countries (including sadly Britain and America) live in 'two party dictatorships' and thus also don't get a genuine choice.

What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

[DrewKaree]

Oh god....not you too, Drew.  I know full well that you don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  "We were attacked....we acted???"  You know better.  For the love of god, can't you see that nobody here has made the slightest criticism about the war in Afghanistan aside from the fact that we should have sent and still should have a much larger presence there.

This isn't about the dems not wanting to protect our country from threats.  We just seem to be the only ones who can get it through our heads that Iraq was not a problem.  Is there some fantastic hypothetical situation where they could one day be a problem?  Yes.  But we've got some pretty damn big problems RIGHT NOW.  Such as Al Queida, Suadi's in particular, crashing jets into our World Trade Centers.  You can go on your what if Saddam did this, what if Saddam did that until your blue in the face.

Here's what I believe.  We went to Afghanistan to hunt down the Taliban.  We did NOT send hundreds of thousands of troops there, because it WAS like fighting in that "quagmire" called Vietnam.  The "home team" had knowledge and fighting tactics that, while having a small army, gave them sufficient tactical advantage over us that the only way to have been sure we eliminated them all would have been to drop Glass-Factory-Makers^TM.  The American people want that to be THE last resort.  

While we were there, we were gathering intelligence from our agencies, as well as other countries, and they all pointed to Sadaam still in possession of WMD's.  I believe we also had reason to believe, at that time, that Sadaam was/did harbor terrorists, and that he was working with them to attack the U.S.  I believe that after years of resolutions, Sadaam believed that this would be like any other resolution, where he could blow it off.  I believe that Bush looked at the information he had available to hiim at the time, viewed leaving Sadaam in power as a viable option ONLY if he fully complied with the U.N., and BELIEVED Sadaam still had weapons, as he was given numerous times to show otherwise, and was contentious to the point of leading everyone to believe he still had WMD's, as the intelligence agencies of numerous countries believed.

I believe that Bush decided to act against Sadaam, and believed that during this fight, the U.S. would find people who could further help us find bin Laden, find out where Sadaam's WMD's were hidden, and free a people that knew nothing but Sadaam's oppression.  

It's not a matter of "what-if's".  Giving you the examples of Sadaam's actions over years of U.N. resolutions WOULD, in fact, make me blue in the face.  I'd have to take a breath every so often.

That's what makes liberals/conservatives different.  You seem to think Iraq wasn't a problem, whereas we do.  The cry has gone up about "let's go here, let's go there" when similar situations happen in other areas of the world (Sudan, N. Korea, Iran).  If it's wrong that we didn't send enough troops into Afghanistan, how can it be right to take troops from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq to go to those places NOW?

WHEN will someone finally say "Dammit, France and Russia were wanting to be repaid from Iraq, NO WONDER they didn't want to go!".  WHEN will soeone finally say "Dammit, France and Russia need to put the smackdown on N. Korea, Sudan, Iran...unless they AGREE with the things going on there."  

Are WE, THE U.S., the ONLY nation that is wiling to do something?  If so, then WHY IN RUDY'S NAME DOES NO ONE REALIZE THAT?  

If we're the only ones who will act, then why is the U.N. held up as this beacon of hope when dealing with rogue nations?

[TA Pilot]

What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

The Allies did not allow Nazis to run for government in Germany.

Nazis -still- cant run for goverment in Germany.

Does the exclusion of a particular faction from running for government mean that said government isnt legitimate?

[Grasshopper]

What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

The Allies did not allow Nazis to run for government in Germany.

Nazis -still- cant run for goverment in Germany.

Does the exclusion of a particular faction from running for government mean that said government isnt legitimate?

Yes, sometimes.

To use your example, if the Germans were prevented from voting for the Nazi party AND the majority of Germans wanted to vote for the Nazi party, then the party that actually got into power would, by definition, not be legitimate.

Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You can't say I believe in democracy as long as a party with a philosophy broadly similar to mine gets into power!!

To any Germans reading, I'm not suggesting for one minute that the majority of you are Nazi sympathisers I'm just using a hypothetical example to back up my point.

[DrewKaree]

Consider this though guys:

If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?  Terrorism doesn't work against military personnel in the same way it does with civilians.

they're so fanatical in their goal to kill Americans, they employ suicide bombers.  How do you stuff a suicide bomber under the mattress?  What better opportunity for a suicide bomber than the chance to kill the very people defending American?

The question I ask is: Isn't calling Iraq the battleground for the "war on terror" like calling Brazil the battleground for the "war on drugs"?  I think it's oversimplifying things a bit.  Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.

You've oversimplified it to the point that you've missed the fact that they AREN'T standing in the street and fighting.  They're hiding in buildings, building booby traps, sending suicide bombers, building car bombs....it's not as simplistic (the fight they're waging) as you paint it.

[DrewKaree]

Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  

Making people happy. Compare the outcome of kicking someone in the nuts and helping someone get a job.

care to make known what "making people happy" means?  Give them a rubber ball?  That simplistic "make 'em happy" is a smoke screen.  Tell us how you would go about making EVEYRONE happy, because terrorism starts with ONE person who gets others who are marginally happy to follow.  Solve the conflict with Israel is how you'd make them happy.  How exactly, again, did you say you'd solve the conflict with Israel?  I see the pie, but it's not in the sky yet.  Please put it there for all to see.

I might add: don't interfere with other countries internal affairs so much (it always backfires on the US anyway)

You're right, it always backfires on the U.S., but for some reason, if we didn't send money to other countries to help solve their "internal affairs", we're painted as the Evil Empire.  We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.  

The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous that no one EVER says "stop sending that money away, we're in debt up to our eyeballs HERE!".   And make no mistake about it, foreign aid DOES include more than money, and it DOES mean that we're "interfering with other countries internal affairs."

[TA Pilot]

Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You know, of course, that democracy, in an of itself, is valueless.  Its perfectly possibly to have an abjectly evil democracy.

Two wolves and a chicken deciding on dinner...

In order for "democracy" to mean anything, there has to be limints on what the majority can do in that democracy.  If its necessary for the majorty to be limited in their political power in order to maintain the rights of others, then its necessary - and if its not done, then you have the rule of the jungle, not the rule of law.

Given that, and the histoprical examples we have, I have no problem at all with a gvmnt in Iraq that precludes a theocracy.

After all - we have that here.   Right?

[TA Pilot]

The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

[DrewKaree]

Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?

we call them insurgents because words have power in their meaning.  They are terrorists, plain and simple.  The two words and their meaning fully explain the difference.  What you're failing to realize is that the shift in words doesn't make what WAS done go away.  The people now called "insurgents" are still "terrorists".  Only now that they're fighting to keep their power, they can only sporadically inflict methods of terror.  To label them "insurgents" is to look the other way about the mass graves in Iraq.  It is to look the other way about the punishments and torture doled out by Sadaam's sons.  It is to look the other way at the beheadings.  It is to ignore the possibility that those who seek to bring vengeance against the U.S. AREN'T coming into Iraq to fight against our troops.

Here:
Terrorist - one who uses force and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc.  Do the mass graves in Iraq ring a bell?  Does the use of biological weapons against the Iraqi's fit that definition?  In the twisting of the definition, many will proudly proclaim "Isn't that what the U.S. is doing right now?  We have a record to stand on regarding our use of force and the knowledge to know when to stop when we are victorious.  Ask Japan.  

Insurgent - rising up against established authoritythese aren't insurgents.  They seek to fight against us to remove us from the region so they can continue their terroristic ways.  By this stupid label, the Iraqi people who "rose up" against Sadaam and were put into mass graves, sometimes still alive, were insurgents.  What form of "rising up" did the thousands who had biological agents used against them...what did they do?  Stand up and say "Sadaam, I don't have to listen to you, because I'm impervious to biological agents?

Its a war of words that does a greater disservice by slowly turning the public's opinion away from what is actually happening.  Being killed by a suicide bomber is an act of terrorism, yet that person will be considered an insurgent.   Being beheaded by someone is a terroristic act, yet those people are considered a group of insurgents.

[Grasshopper]

Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You know, of course, that democracy, in an of itself, is valueless.  Its perfectly possibly to have an abjectly evil democracy.

Two wolves and a chicken deciding on dinner...

In order for "democracy" to mean anything, there has to be limints on what the majority can do in that democracy.  If its necessary for the majorty to be limited in their political power in order to maintain the rights of others, then its necessary - and if its not done, then you have the rule of the jungle, not the rule of law.

Given that, and the histoprical examples we have, I have no problem at all with a gvmnt in Iraq that precludes a theocracy.

After all - we have that here.   Right?

Well I would agree with you that there is a lot more to 'democracy' than majority voting (if that is what you're saying). But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

If the owerwhelming majority of them want a western style democracy then fine. But if not then we've got a problem.

[TA Pilot]

But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

So if the people of the United States wanted a theocracy -and were barred from one (as they would be) we would not longer have a democracy?


You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

We've have three major successes at doing this.
Germany, Japan, Korea.
We cant do it?

[Grasshopper]

But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

So if the people of the United States wanted a theocracy -and were barred from one (as they would be) we would not longer have a democracy?

Yes, for two reasons.

Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.

You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

We've have three major successes at doing this.
Germany, Japan, Korea.
We cant do it?

Well I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a genuine democracy one day.

If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Germany, Japan and Korea were undoubtedly successes. But we had a better calibre of American leader then.

Unfortunately, there have been more recent examples where America intervention has resulted in a dictatorship for example Chile in the 70s.

[Crazy Cooter]

"That's what makes liberals/conservatives different.  You seem to think Iraq wasn't a problem, whereas we do.  The cry has gone up about "let's go here, let's go there" when similar situations happen in other areas of the world (Sudan, N. Korea, Iran).  If it's wrong that we didn't send enough troops into Afghanistan, how can it be right to take troops from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq to go to those places NOW?"
Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.  We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.  We KNEW N. Korea had/has nukes.  They admitted it.  So who was the greatest threat?  Based on the "pre-emptive strike" theory, IMO we should have gone into N. korea instead of Iraq.  Based on the "humanitarian" theory: Sudan (maybe, I'm not well versed on that topic but it looks that way).  Based on the "terrorism" theory: Afganistan.

It comes down to Bush needing a list.  A list that starts like this:

Iraq: Chemical/biological WMD's?
Iran: Nukes?
N. Korea: Has Nukes.  Says it will make more.
Pakistan: Has Nukes.
Russia: Has Nukes.  Doesn't know where they all are.
Afganistan: Has Terrorists.

Where would you concentrate efforts?

[TA Pilot]

Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Ok...  so how does that necessitate that a Theocracy cannot be a democracy, and vice versa?


Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.

How so?
The people cannot choose their leaders and representatives under a theocracy?  Why not?



Well I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a genuine democracy one day.

Indeed.  This will change the Middle East forever.
Change thats a long time coming.


If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Thanks, Senator Kerry.

You know, I'm puzzled.
If Germany and France were with us in Iraq, would you make the same statement?
If so...  why does the cooperation of France and Germany determine "successful diplomacy"?


Germany, Japan and Korea were undoubtedly successes. But we had a better calibre of American leader then.

Whoa!!   I thought Kerry was in Missouri?

Again:
If Germany and France were with us in Iraq, would you make the same statement?
If so...  why does the cooperation of France and Germany determine "successful diplomacy"?

And lets not forget:
Many of the complaintys you here today about whats not going right in Iraq, you heard all through the late 40s regarding Germany and Japan.  Reconstruction of a demolished couintry isnt easy.  No one has more experience at it than us.


Unfortunately, there have been more recent examples where America intervention has resulted in a dictatorship for example Chile in the 70s.

Can you name another country that has taken two powerful totalitarian states and created 3 vibrant democracies from them?  In doing so, the United States has brought more people to freedom than all of the other countries in the world combined.

If we can't do it, it cant be done.
If it cant be done, the world is doomed to darkness.

[DrewKaree]

Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.  We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.

We didn't need proof to convince other nations.  They possessed their own proof.  When other nations gave intelligence information that THEY had gathered that Sadaam possessed WMD's.  I think you've forgotten that fact.  Everyone was convinced Sadaam had WMD's, which would be a big problem.  Since we didn't know exactly WHAT WMD's he possessed at that time, I consider it highly suspect that you can say it wasn't the biggest.  You have to use hindsight to make that argument, and we're arguing about what was happening AT THAT TIME

The IAEA found in 1991-92 the indications that Iraq, N. Korea, and S. Africa were pursuing nuclear development programs.  Now, maybe Sadaam is suddenly the believable truth-teller on the block, but not accounting for weapons according to U.N. Resolution after Resolution would lead me to believe that it JUST MIGHT be possible that he hasn't been honest regarding ANYTHING he did/didn't have.  Maybe you're willing to believe that N. Korea is telling the truth, and Sadaam never had anything either, but I'm a bit more cynical.   We had to make a choice.  We chose Iraq.  

We are now using several countries to exert pressure on N. Korea.  This is the same process we used with Iraq, but for some reason, NOW it's not good policy.  NOW we should "go in with guns blazing".  It was OK for us to stay out of Iraq for several years, but now we should attack.  

 

[TA Pilot]

Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.

Perhaps not.   But you dont always have to go after the biggest problem first (see: WW2 - going after Africa and Italy beofre invading France).


We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.

THIS is bunk.
ALL the "allies" were convinced of the threat of Iraqi WMDs.  French and German and Russian intel all confirmed what our intel said.

No, their lack of motivation to help us had nothing to do with lack of evidence of WMDs - it had -everything- to do with their pockets being lined by Iraqi oil money.
 


We KNEW N. Korea had/has nukes.  They admitted it.  So who was the greatest threat?  Based on the "pre-emptive strike" theory, IMO we should have gone into N. korea instead of Iraq.

Only if you believe that diplomacy has failed in NKorea.
Do you believe this?

[patrickl]

Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?

Nope, I never read a newspaper, or for that matter, listen to CNN.  Now, please post your answer to my solution, as those few sentences failed to state that my solution, based on your "facts" is either right, in your view, or wrong, in your view.

In case you missed it:

Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.

Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.

Of course the war in Afghanistan helped a lot in bringing Al Qaida down (temporarily at least) and the war in Iraq draws terrorist to that region (again temporarily), but the war in Iraq has no purpose in actually fighting against terrorism. I claim the opposite in that history proves that wars like these only increase terrorism. It's too late now of course, the damage is already done. You're all in this ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- now and perhaps Kerry can get you out in one piece.

I'm not really sure what Bush was thinking (no pun intended) at the time when he insisted on going to war so prematurely. Personally I think it's about his personal glory (look daddy, I finished your job) and the idea that he could get a "free war" (if the war was won he could steal plenty of Iraqi oil to cover for expenses and let US companies rebuild the damage he made for some extra money for his friends) I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it makes a huge lot more sense than claiming there is/was a terrorist link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

He even might have thought it would be a bold statement to scare other rogue nations (like Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and France). But then the problem is that this assumes that "violence solves everything". In fact, violence is the reason why the middle east is in such a mess right now. Kill one man and his whole family is against you. So every kill is more likely to increase the number of terrorists. As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.

So, in retrospect, the old Bush (unwittingly) initiated the creation of Al Qai'da. Who knows what new movement the new Bush has brought upon the US. Since he is now much more the bully/---uvula--- of the world than his dad was (in fact he was generally highly regarded) I'm afraid the response might be far worse this time. There are now much more "angry muslim places" to recruit from.

[Crazy Cooter]

Since we didn't know exactly WHAT WMD's he possessed at that time, I consider it highly suspect that you can say it wasn't the biggest.  You have to use hindsight to make that argument, and we're arguing about what was happening AT THAT TIME
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *thought* Iraq had WMD's.
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *knew* N. Korea had WMD's (and missles capable of delivering one to the western states).
I see N. Korea as the biggest threat.

Only if you believe that diplomacy has failed in NKorea.
Do you believe this?
If you judge the success of such diplomacy by whether or not the country actually aquired WMD's, then the failure of diplomacy is more apparent in N. Korea than Iraq.

No, their lack of motivation to help us had nothing to do with lack of evidence of WMDs - it had -everything- to do with their pockets being lined by Iraqi oil money.
"lack of evidence" - Here's an exercise.  You guys all be "Nations" and we'll have the FBI be the "UN".  I want everyone to call the FBI and tell them I have a martian in my pocket.  Will the FBI bust into my house and tear the place up?  Hell no, but they might send out investigators (the men in black).  Now call them and tell them TA has a martian in his pocket.  They get to TA's house and he's standing on his roof next to a martian.  Who's the biggest threat?

IMO, Bush misapplied the efforts of the US to deter other Nations from aquiring WMD's.  Right now we're tied up in Iraq.  If N. Korea gives us the finger, we can't do anything about it and they know that.  Meanwhile, they continue producing Nukes.  Kerry wants to open discussions between us and N. Korea in addition to the talks that are already going on.  IMO, this is a good thing.

[fredster]

Do any of you personally know anybody that has been reamed by the Patriot act? Anybody?  Have you been personally threatened with the patriot act?

Have any of you even read the patriot act and can vouch for the details?  The devil must be in the details somewhere.

There are a lot of strange laws in the US. Many existing laws can be applied wrongly.  If the coast guard finds some dope seeds on your boat, they can take it.  Have too much cash on you when you travel? They can confiscate that too.

Read and understand this - THE UN IS USELESS. Worse, it's corrupted by bribery.  The OIL for food scandal is showing the world just how USELESS and CORRUPT it is.  

For some reason, liberals are confusing things.  That's okay, liberals aren't deep thinkers so it's the conservative's burden to tell them where they are wrong.  I'll try in walk through this slowly for those of us who have rose colored liberal glasses on. So in a simple nutshell- here's what Bush is doing to protect us-

This is a global war on Terrorists.  Al-Queda is one of many terrorist organizations that live in the world.  While there are other terrorists that are NOT muslim, the ones that are dangerous to the US is muslim.

There is a nexus of these terrorists in the Middle east. They have a vision of one world of Muslims.  Their movement has grown because of the oppressive nature of their governments.  Splinter cells of terrorists have banded together in the world and have formed a loose association, similar to organized crime in the US.

Governments like Afghanistan that were weakly controlling their own areas adopted them for various reasons.  The US declared that these governments must stop allowing these terrorists a home base.

Iraq was ran by a tyrant that killed his former leader.  He was ruthless and bold.  His country was renouned in the middle east as aggressive.  We all know what he did within his borders to control his personal empire.  IT was reasonable to assume that he would pass some of these weapons along to antagonize the US.  Remember Saddam's comments after 9/11?  

The US, the UK, and the rest of the world had information that Saddam had weapons.  Terrorists from Afghanistan came to him after the war.  We didn't know what kind of relationship he was building for sure.  We did think at the time he had some really nasty weapons.  The US was also hit with anthrax from somewhere, and we were paralized for some time.

The President went to the UN only to find our allies wanted to protect Saddam.  They did agree he had weapons, but they didn't agree to attack him unless he went out of his borders (at least that's the cover story).

The President asked congress to look at the evidence. They passed the resolution to go to war. If we hadn't gone to war, we wouldn't have known he didn't have developed weapon systems today.

It is also possible that if The President didn't go to war his detractors today would be saying he's a wimp and Saddam is a threat that must be removed.  Because we still would not be sure.

Now that we went in we have the opportunity to remove the driving force behind fundamental muslim terrorism - oppressive governments that restrict the flow of information and ideas.  It's counter to the "flat earth" view of the fundamentalists.  If we can create a democracy there, we have achieved a positive change for the world.  We have never been attacked by a democracy.

This kind of action was risky.  If Saddam indeed had weapons we'd be praising the President.

Any President faced with that Intelligence would be WRONG not to go to war with Iraq.  

John Kerry says he'd be smarter.  He said he would make sure that he had a coalition and international support and he'd fight then.

In the first gulf war the US was protecting Kuwait from Saddam, we had a UN declaration, and a huge coalition of forces.  John Kerry voted against going to war then.

I'd rather have a President who acted in our interest based on our needs before somebody like Kerry who won't take action without a poll.

We have to stop these terrorists before they get here and solve the problem for my son's generation. If not, we live in fear.

[DrewKaree]

Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.

explain how Sadaam being removed (which was the result of Bush going to war) does more harm than good in the long run, when you think that Sadaam was a threat to his people.  

As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.

You really and truly can't even follow your own reasoning.  Sadaam was supposed to be fighting them, giving them the beat down.  We come in, fight Sadaam, and now the terrorists are pissed AT US?  Man, how can you say that I misinterpret your words when, right THERE, it's easy as all get out to interpret your words as "If we'd have left Sadaam alone, we wouldn't have been attacked, and Sadaam would still be giving them the beat down".  Therefore, it's NOT stupid to extrapolate that theory and state that it MUST be better to put Sadaam back in power, since he was doing a good job smacking down the idiots who would attack us.  Not dynamite, but good enough that it took them over 8 years to get back at us.  

Let me see if I can understand your reasoning, before I post this.  

If we had not gone to war in Iraq the first time, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11.  Is that what you are saying?

I can't seem to get a grasp on what you're saying, because you (quite obviously to me, but you seem to think I'm misinterpreting you) are giving seemingly contradictory statements, but don't like me extrapolating your theories at my discretion.  So extrapolate them at YOUR discretion, so we all might clearly understand what point you're trying to make.

[DrewKaree]

"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *thought* Iraq had WMD's.
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *knew* N. Korea had WMD's (and missles capable of delivering one to the western states).
I see N. Korea as the biggest threat.

You may have seen it like that, but the guy you agree with most certainly thought differently.  Bill Clinton seemed willing to believe they were only looking to get cheaper power to run all the washers, dryers, and TV's in N. Korea.  Was Clinton just a rube?  Let's see what the "horse's" mouth had to say about what was his "biggest threat concern:

"In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region?  And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States? Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now?  

In my view, we cannot.   The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons.  We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.  The weapons are an unacceptable threat.  And if the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat."  Source

Please read clearly his words.  "...when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now?"

We could act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, eliminate this deadly threat by acting NOW in concert with the international community.  

If no one wants to act, we act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, act NOW with cooperation from other countries.  Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I DO know that Britain is another country.  Australia is another country.  Poland is another country.  Spain WAS another country, as was Italy....are you seriously trying to argue that the words uttered by Kerry himself were NOT followed by Bush?  According to Kerry's own words, in what possible way can you state that he would have acted differently?  

It's all well and good to sit here and debate whether N. Korea posed a greater threat, but the man who is running against President Bush can be directly quoted as saying that he would have done exactly what Bush DID.  The man those words can be attributed to ALSO just happened to be privy to the exact same information the President had in order to make that decision.  

You may want to overlook that fact, but John Kerry had the same information, and failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions.  If he now disagrees with his own words and advice and states Bush is doing everything wrong, then he is guilty and unfit to be president.  Guilty of what, you ask?  Guilty of EITHER wanting to fight the wrong war (again, his words), OR guilty of not having enough leadership to vote against the war.  Take your pick, but he's clearly guilty.


You stated that we "thought" Iraq possessed WMD's.  Here's the condensed list of post-9/11 quotes attributed to the folks you seem to think are capable of leading our country in a time of war they now don't want to wage.  Pay close attention...each is speaking of something they know.  Check 'em out:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
   - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[GGKoul]

The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

Canada sent aid in the form of money and first aid supplies.  

[GGKoul]

Missed the 2nd debate?  How did it go?  

[Grasshopper]

Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Ok...  so how does that necessitate that a Theocracy cannot be a democracy, and vice versa?

Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.

How so?
The people cannot choose their leaders and representatives under a theocracy?  Why not?

You posed the question - 'can a theocracy be a democracy and vice versa?'

When I originally responded, I was assuming that when you said 'theocracy' you were talking about an extreme Taliban style government. If that is the case then my answer to your question is an emphatic 'no'.

However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

You also said the American people would be barred from having a theocratic government, even if they voted for one. I'll have to take your word for this as I'm no expert on the US constitution.

If the people of a country want a particular form of government, are barred from having it, and instead have imposed upon them a fundamentally different form of government, then it's difficult to argue that the country in question is still a democracy.

And it's not like saying - most people voted Democrat but the Republicans got into power so America is not a democracy. The decision whether or not you want to live under a theocracy is pretty fundamental.

Also, the ability to choose a leader or representative does not automatically make a country democratic. In some former communist countries, people were allowed to choose from a selection of potential leaders. But only communist party members were allowed to put themselves forward!

If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Thanks, Senator Kerry.

Don't mention it. It was my pleasure to talk to you!

As you've now seen the light, can I count on your vote?

p.s. you can call me John

[DrewKaree]

The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

Canada sent aid in the form of money and first aid supplies.  

Thank you for your taxes.  

[Crazy Cooter]

"Do any of you personally know anybody that has been reamed by the Patriot act? Anybody?  Have you been personally threatened with the patriot act?"

Yes, My brother-in-law's brother.  Walked out of the public library in Duluth, MN and had unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out.  "Who are you?  Do you have a passport?  Where are you going?  How long have you been in the country?..."  Thirty minutes of questions and made him late for work.

Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border

"Patriot" Act II http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf, which Bush will enact - he even says so in his commercials, takes the first act even further.

"Britain is another country.  Australia is another country.  Poland is another country.  Spain WAS another country, as was Italy...."
I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.  While the thought is nice, I don't consider the limited resources those countries (some temporarily) contribute a true "coalition" of forces.  As an example, here's the latest additions to "the coalition":
* The Kingdom of Tonga = 45 Royal Marines in early July to Iraq.
* New Zealand redeployed its contingent of 61 troops in late-September 2004.  (the New Zealand government has claimed that it had not joined the US-led force but that the deployment had been at the request of the United Nations.)
* On September 6, Armenia announced that it would deploy 50 troops to Iraq, though it was unclear when the troops would be deployed to Iraq; until such time, it is not being included in the count of countries taking part in the coalition.
Your examples:
* U.K = 12,000
* Australia = 850
* Poland = 2,500 - pulling out?
* Spain = zero - pulled out.
* Italy = 3,169
* Currently 29 Countries in Iraq.  16 have less than 200 bodies in the country.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.

"failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions."
The vote wasn't to "send in troops on this date".  The vote was if as a last resort troops were needed.  Where Bush and Kerry disagree is if Bush exhausted all other options and met the terms stated he would meet before deploying troops.  Both Kerry & I feel he did not.  One thing that the Bush campaign has done is cloud this fact.  Including his partial quote he is so fond of saying: "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Here is the entire quote:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How about the "winning the war was brilliant" bit?
I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=269.html

For those of you new to this discussion:
http://www.factcheck.org/ is an excellent resource.  It is neither for or against either candidate, it only finds the flaws in each argument.  It's an easy read too, each article is about a page long.  If you're undecided, this is a must read.  If you are decided, read it anyway

[DrewKaree]

Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border

You wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border....that's a pathetically simplistic statement.  If the U.S. patrolled the border in the fashion opposite to that simplistic statement, you'd be here claiming we are living under martial law.  It's foolish, as it leaves no option by which you would be satisfied.  

I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.

Your thoughts and feelings simply DO NOT negate the fact that we are not the only country, Bush DID act with other countries to enter into war with Sadaam, and we ARE working in concert with other countries.

Tell us what other countries you want to be there fighting with us.  These countries obviously aren't going to give as much as the country who was attacked, so tell us which other countries would make this coalition less of a "sham", in your mind?  

To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.

I'm going to help you out.  Your candidate stated he would form a coalition before he went to war.  You state that a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.  My help is this:  Webster's New World Dictionary
co-a-li-tion - 1) a combination; union  2) a temporary alliance of political parties, nations, etc. for some specific purpose.

See, the definition of a coalition you are erroneously believing doesn't happen to jive with what the word actually MEANS.  You aren't referring to a coalition, you're referring to a commune.

"failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions."
The vote wasn't to "send in troops on this date".  The vote was if as a last resort troops were needed.

again, sorry to do this to ya, but I'll show you Kerry's words....now, it may not be fair to do this, since he may have changed his position two or three times, but here:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

He didn't vote this as a last resort, as you are erroneouly led to believe by all the bluster nowadays.  The vote was, SPECIFICALLY, a vote to give the President the authority to use force AT HIS DISCRETION, not as a last resort.  

[patrickl]

Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.

explain how Sadaam being removed (which was the result of Bush going to war) does more harm than good in the long run, when you think that Sadaam was a threat to his people.  

I'm talking about more harm to the US of course. I assumed that was obvious since you claimed this war was supposed to be one that was good for the US (lessen terrorist threat). The fact that it will probably be better for the people of Iraq themselves is why I would support an invasion that was properly organized. But the essence is that if the invasion WAS properly planned then the harm to the US could have been largely prevented (although some harm will always come from a war).

As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.

You really and truly can't even follow your own reasoning.  Sadaam was supposed to be fighting them, giving them the beat down.  We come in, fight Sadaam, and now the terrorists are pissed AT US?

There are many reasons for it, but yes they are pissed at the US.

Man, how can you say that I misinterpret your words when, right THERE, it's easy as all get out to interpret your words as "If we'd have left Sadaam alone, we wouldn't have been attacked, and Sadaam would still be giving them the beat down".  Therefore, it's NOT stupid to extrapolate that theory and state that it MUST be better to put Sadaam back in power, since he was doing a good job smacking down the idiots who would attack us.  Not dynamite, but good enough that it took them over 8 years to get back at us.  

You cannot reverse the damage that has already been done. You can't put the pin back in a grenade that already went off.

Anyway, there are two scenarios for Iraq now. Either it gets a US friendly government and it thereby denies the Shia muslims their majority ruling. Thus they get angry and fuel the terrorist movement. Or Iraq becomes a Shia muslim state (like Iran) and thus fuel the terrorist movement.

Let me see if I can understand your reasoning, before I post this.  

If we had not gone to war in Iraq the first time, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11.  Is that what you are saying?

Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?

I'm not saying that the first war shouldn't have been fought (obviously that one had to be fought and it was organized well), but to show that in that region of the world violence tends to get answered with more violence (even when you fight a war that the whole world sees as a good war). Especially when you are dealing with religious fanatics. These people take offense if you ask their wife a question and they go hysterical if you enter certain cities.

I can't seem to get a grasp on what you're saying, because you (quite obviously to me, but you seem to think I'm misinterpreting you) are giving seemingly contradictory statements, but don't like me extrapolating your theories at my discretion.  So extrapolate them at YOUR discretion, so we all might clearly understand what point you're trying to make.

You just have to read it better (and remember that the reverse of a statement does not always automatically hold)

I guess you have the same problems with me as Bush does with Kerry. It's hard for someone who only thinks in black and white to understand someone who talks about there also being shades of grey.

I saw a nice instance of this in the second debate (yeah I actually watched some of that). Bush said Kerry didn't vote for some law and insisted that that meant Kerry was against it. Kerry said he would be in favor of a similar law but only if slightly amended to allow an exception in special cases. So he voted against that specific law, but he was not against it in general. Bush didn't grasp that concept either and even repeated the "if your not for it your against it" dogma. Kerry just smiled at so much stupidity.

[patrickl]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

He didn't vote this as a last resort, as you are erroneouly led to believe by all the bluster nowadays.  The vote was, SPECIFICALLY, a vote to give the President the authority to use force AT HIS DISCRETION, not as a last resort.  

Doesn't "if necessary" imply "only as a last resort"?

[DrewKaree]

One thing that the Bush campaign has done is cloud this fact.  Including his partial quote he is so fond of saying: "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Here is the entire quote:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

how do you reconcile him saying we needed to go after Sadaam, this WHILE we were in Afghanistan, this WHILE following everything Kerry said he would do before going to war?  If you wish, I'll give you quotes to back this up.  He is stating it is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time....perhaps he should have chosen not to show up to vote for the war, shut his mouth regarding going to war, and never served on the Senate Intelligence Committee.  If he had not done those three things, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time would be an invalid argument.

And I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

So to follow Kerry's words, (and hey, whaddaya know, he doesn't specify a coalition as you do, Cooter!) we should have more countries involved.  Which ones, specifically, and Cooter, who do you think we should have?  Which part of the U.N. should we have?  The corrupted countries?  The ones with dictators leading their respective countries?  The ones who agree with us?  Oh wait, they're already there.  They saw the folly of the U.N.'s decision to continue resolution after resolution.

Your article http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=269.html

states that "When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq".  

Again I ask Kerry and Cooter...."Cootery"?    what does more international support involve?  Coalition doesn't equal identical sacrifice, so what does international support mean?  More countries?  Which ones?  Blech-menistan?  Who-gives-a-crap-istan? (more commonly known as France)

We needed people who were willing to send troops of any number.  France could have sent troops to Iraq to teach the terrorists how to surrender effectively, but as we can all see, they view this as a fight to the death, not something to give up.

[fredster]

Crazy Cooter
You said:

Yes, My brother-in-law's brother.  Walked out of the public library in Duluth, MN and had unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out.  "Who are you?  Do you have a passport?  Where are you going?  How long have you been in the country?..."  Thirty minutes of questions and made him late for work.
/quote]

Exactly how does that relate to the patriot act?  I have had that happen to me when I was hanging out in a car in a parking lot when I was 19.

Did they put him in Jail or was he just late?  What civil rights did he loose? Answer: none.  They system worked.  How many times have you been pulled over? This guy didn't even get a ticket. I'm glad they have people in the white vans. That's a good thing man.  A very good thing.

As far as the coalition, how many coalition forces were present in Afgahnistan and the Gulf War 1?

Do people forget we actually have the largest Army in the world and the US is by far the most powerful country in the world?  Those 200 soldiers from spain probably represented 25% of their Army.

And as a general note, the war on terror isn't over if Al-Queda is totally destroyed either. Bush pointed this out in his speech after 9/11 and every opportunity since.  It's simplistic to say that we are after one man, although I'm sure we'd like to have him, dead if possible.  

There are all those nasty cells in palestine and these freelancers too that we really need to kill. Not capture, kill.

Will Kerry do that? No.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait we had a strong coalition, we had a UN resolution, and we had a valid security risk (because of the oil) to go to war with Iraq .  Kerry voted against it.  It was on a silver platter, and he voted against it.
But maybe he voted for it first?

[TA Pilot]

However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

the

[DrewKaree]

Doesn't "if necessary" imply "only as a last resort"?

to you, it does, because that's what you want it to mean.  

How would you go about defining what is and isn't necessary?  If we think Sadaam is working to hide his weapons, and we don't act NOW, that could be necessary.  

"as a last resort" means to continue to talk to him, craft resolution after resolution after resolution, under the misduided notion that Sadaam comply.  If, after the millionth resolution, which finally said "we will bomb you if you don't comply", he did not comply, then I would consider THAT to be "the last resort".

No, it definitely DOES NOT imply "as a last resort".  You know what DOES imply "as a last resort"?  Using the words "as a last resort".  Not today, when it's politically expedient, but when he made the statement.  Period.  

The words Kerry used WERE masterful in that they could be used in whatever fashion he needed them to be when the election came.

patrickl, Kerry made a choice when putting those words in the air.  He could make a forceful statement...some might say LEAD, and remove all doubt and "misuse" of his words.  He instead chose to use vacuous words to hide behind, trying to stand on the premise that he is for the war, when his actions, his words, his advice...all of them line up exactly with what Bush has, in fact, DONE.  

Bush never implied anything.  Open up, or we're comin' in.  Leaders lead, leaders state fact, leaders act on their words.

Leaders DON'T imply.

[TA Pilot]

To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.

Then the US has never been a member of a coalition.

Can you name a post-WW2 conflict where the US id not take the vasy majority of the "allied" casualties, paid the vast majority of the cost, and provided the vast majority of the force?  

We ALWAYS carry most of the load.  Always.

That you (and Kerry) demean other countries for their efforts is sure to be remembered by them - calling them "bribed and coerced" is certainly a way to win their hearts.