Well, if I could vote, id still go for Republicans. Sure they could've done things better in Iraq, but hey, least were not sitting here waiting to get nuked like if the Dems were in charge. Course that could all change soon... More to be written later.

Ok back. Well, you know why I want Republicans? I dont want to die. No one does. With the liberal's "cant we all get along?" attitude in the majority, we'd be playing right into the terrorist's hands.

Listen. If we want to finish Iraq, we need to stop being a police force and crack down. The more we tollerate them the more they'll attack us. If you want to be at all secure, and for the future of our country, vote Republican.

Well, If I was able to vote (in...*counts on her fingers* 4 years I'll be able to!!11 WOOT) the republicans could count on my vote. Although, some of the stuff they do isn't the best choice, or smartest but......
BTW, Tuesday is voting day in Michigan for the new governor. (OMG, I LIVE IN MICHIGAN!!11) Our state is ranked last in employeement. Our present governor is doing a crappy-tacular job for our state, so its best we try someone new. Right now she's a Democrat, and her opponent is a Republican.
AND, OMG their's this law their trying to pass in my state that allows hunters to shoot Morning doves!! *gasp* Who would want to shoot a Morning Dove? When they make their soothing "cooooo cooooo" in the morning. (LOL, and for some strange reason they like to sit right in the middle of our drive way, and my dog enjoys watching them XD) I just hope it doesn't pass..... :worry: *waves her "don't shoot the Morning dove" banner*

I'm sure when the U.S. elects a new president, all the anti-Bush supporters *cough*Saddie*cough* are going to be celebrating. Personally, I'm kinda anxious to see who our next leader will be. Seems like Bush has been in office a long time, and I'm curious to know what plans and ideas the new leader will have... :whistle:

Got a vid. Its the trailer for Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. The war taking place in this game is similar to RL. Note the "threat indicator" at the start. But what I want you to see is the last quarter-half. THAT is how the war should be fought. None of this door-to-door crap.

Ownage.

I thought about making a topic for this, but decided against it. Since, however, someone else made one, I feel no problem weighing in with my own opinion.

I can't vote. I'm four months too young for this election. However, if I could, I would vote straight Democrat as every other registered voter in my immediate and extended family is voting (I'm far more political then my family, so they have minor influence in my political opinions-- it's more the other way around). I've done everything in my power to get more voters out there to vote Democrat: attended numerous protests and rallies, handed out pamplets against my district's incumbent Congressman, Peter King, wrote editorials for the newspaper, talked to every single one of my teachers about voting in this election.

Don't get me wrong... I don't like the Democrats. As a matter of fact, I abhore almost all politicians (Stewart/Colbert for 08! ;) ). But I think the Republicans are far worse, and this Congress has been nothing but a rubber stamp endorsement of the President. Why else would he have only used his veto ONCE in six years? And that was just this past summer, nonetheless, when even his own party members started to disagree with him.

I heard a projection that not only will the Democrats get the fifteen seats they need to control Congress, but they may get as many as 50. I can only hope, but God knows how this election will turn out with so much of the country voting with those Diebold machines. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist, but they haven't been used enough for me to trust them-- especially with the issues that have already arisen with them in early elections.

I digress... So why would I vote Democrat? Well, as our own leaked government documents have told us, the Iraq War has worsened worldwide terrorism. I'm pro-stem cell research, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pretty much against everything else the GOP stands for. I think having Bush in the Presidency is bad enough. We don't need a Congress that supports him too (yay for checks and balances!).

Ah, I see that voting with fear is alive and well. Well, as I aforementioned, seeing as the Iraq War has strengthened the jihadist movement, I don't see how the Republicans are making us any safer. And my heart still beats for those 655,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Besides, I stick to the words of Benjamin Franklin on this issue. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Saftey deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Smart guy. And yes, I believe that voting for the Republicans is giving up essential liberty.

So, since I can't vote, what am I going to be doing on election night? Going door to door in my neighborhood, and asking people if they've voted yet (yes, I am really doing this). Then I think I'll sit down in front of the TV, and watch a special live, conjoined edition of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. :snack:

Oh, trust me, hun. I've already got the party plans drawn up and the helium tank for the balloons.

[Edit]: "I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."

Hehe. I love "V for Vendetta" way too much (happy guy fawkes day, everyone!).

I see you like running from the truth. There is plenty of reason to be afraid. But what im saying is, yes, they may have gotten stronger, thats why we need to step it up over there. Thats why im planning on joining the military (USMC for life) and doing something constructive (funny term, I know). I dont see how holding up a sign and bashing Bush is helping anyone.

Least we take the fight to them, not waiting for another 9/11.

Yeah, it was a good movie. Having you equating to to liberalism kinda ruined it for me, but oh well. I try to get my ideas from other places besides movies, btw.

Quite the contrary-- I comfront the truth. If that means bashing certain politicains for the mistakes they make and holding up signs, I'll do it. I don't care if it means that I sometimes have to cut school to do so, missing out on review for tests in AP classes and subsequently failing them (yep, that's happened). Until I can vote, I act within my rights as a citizen to just do anything. You may not think it makes a difference to protest, but if you were in Manhattan at the last protest I attended in October, you might think differently. When hundreds of thousands of people are with you, and you inspire people passing by enough to jump into the protest too (ten city blocks of cars doing the peace sign out their windows and an entire city bus full of people on their feet, cheering you on), I think it has some impact. Maybe we didn't make a difference to the politicians, but if it gets one single voter energized enough to go out there and cast their ballot on Tuesday, I've made a difference.

I'm glad that you're acting on your beliefs by joining the military (although I'd go to jail before doing so myself). Too many people talk and don't act. But if there was anything else I could possibly do to act on my opinions, what would that be?

North Korea is a far greater threat to American safety than Iraq ever was (please don't take that as me saying we should invade them).

I'm sorry I ruined a great movie for you. That's life, eh? It's just too easy to equate a movie about anarchy, revolution, and violent protest to the political philosophy associated with change.

I'm going to assume that this is your way of telling me that my ideas come from a movie like "V for Vendetta"? If not, I'm sorry for the assumption. If you are, then enjoy this rant.

I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, draw my philosophies of life or politics from something like a Hollywood blockbuster. Consider this instead: perhaps I love the movie so much because it appealed to the ideas I already had inside me. You know what sucked? After 9/11 and everyone I knew was suddenly a Bush supporter. When the Patirot Act passed, I understood at age 12 that people will give up their freedoms for the illusion of safety (I actually just wrote an editorial about this). What I loved about "V for Vendetta" was that it recognized this idea I already had inside of me for the past five years, an idea that was in the minority for a long time when Bush had a 91% approval rating.

I consider myself not very much of anything. I don't think I'm particularly intelligent, well-adjusted, a talented writer, a talented singer, or a good debater. But one thing that I know about myself is that I am well-versed with the world of politics. I know American History backwards and forwards, evident by the 5 I scored last year on the AP American History exam. For you to suggest that my political opinions are drawn from a form of entertainment is insulting. Every day, I read a myriad of political articles from newspapers across the country. Every day, I comfront the news from so many different angles: FOX, CNN, CSPAN, or even Comedy Central (although I pariticularly dislike FOX, it gives me a laugh). The conclusions I've made about politics are completely irrelevant to actors wearing masks. Believe it or not, I am very well-educated in American history and government. I would never assume where you get your ideas from, so please extend the same courtesy to me.

Goddess in Pink: I forgot to mention this in my last post. About celebrating Bush leaving the Presidency, I already have a calender for next year which has a daily countdown of how many days Bush has left in office. :whistle:

Before I begin I would like to add that I live in Australia and so clearly can't vote in this election. I also don't have much knowledge of many of the national issues involved in the debate. I will only speak on some international concerns in relation to this election.


Bremic



I see you like running from the truth. There is plenty of reason to be afraid. But what im saying is, yes, they may have gotten stronger, thats why we need to step it up over there. Thats why im planning on joining the military (USMC for life) and doing something constructive (funny term, I know). I dont see how holding up a sign and bashing Bush is helping anyone.

Without intending to offend you Bremic, it is opinions like these that seriously question my faith in democracy.

Firstly, the problem of fear is rather complex. There may or may not be serious concern over terrorist activity. I think inevitably they can do little to actually harm the western economic and political structure unless we allow it do so. In this case fear of terrorist activity is counter-productive and is exactly what all of the bombings over the past years has been targeting; disruption of the western world. If you speak of personal fear of actually being a victim in one of these attacks then your fear is somewhat more legitimate. But I have to ask why this is so much of a concern when being murdered or hitting a tree with your car isn't. The latter two are far more likely. The answer is rather simple, though. Terrorists and their activity is blown out of proportion to induce this fear to enable increased government powers and a mandate for further action. The prime example being Iraw. It seems to me that the defence department simply wanted Iraq for years. They found a malleable president, threw a little fear in the air and bam you have your war. A war that has become arguably worse than Vietnam I might add.

Your second point fails to fully grasp the notion of causality. Generally, if something has caused increased problems you will stop that action to stop the inflammation. This may in itself stop the problem, it may not. Perhaps, another tact should be tried. What's almost certain is that continuing to feed the flames won't suffocate it. The only example I can think of to the opposite is carbon dioxide and lime water. Originally the limewater goes from milky white to clear. When you add more CO2 it goes back to milky white (or the other way around I can't remember). But there is little to suggest that would be the case in Iraq. The longer the US stays and the more damage they do the more passionate becomes the resistance and the more followers they get. What do you suggest? Full blown bombing and torture methods etc? Have you ever heard of the French/Algerian war? The French thought torture was the best way to get information out of prisoners. The insult to the Algerians was so great that the French were overwhelmed. They lost sight of why they were fighting and the Algerians didn't. Yet another war that the underdog never should have won. Secondly, do you have any idea how expensive, time consuming and difficult infrastructure is to replace? The more infrastructure you remove the less incentive there is to stay in the country. You'll start to see refugees enmasse and a lot more pissed off resistance fighters. Watch the casualties rise and the success of the campaign destroyed.

Further, US forces do not receive the appropriate training for the type of war this is. Covert tactics and unopen warfare are required when dealing with uncertain enemies. Why do you think the SAS and Green Berets are the first to enter the US led campaigns? They clear many of the important areas and open up the land to the hulking US military force that is not suited to the task it needs to provide. It needs to start diversifying its military force or it will continue to struggle.

I do however, agree that simply bashing Bush isn't going to solve any problems now. In the past it may have helped to put some pressure on him to make some better decicions - or at least those around him to do so - but now this is rather pointless. What can be done is to vote for the Democrats in the next election. I don't hold favour to either party but at the least we need to try something different than the consantly inflaming approach.

Least we take the fight to them, not waiting for another 9/11.

Unfortunately, you still seem to be missing the point. There can be no fight. You can't simply destroy terrorists except perhaps by taking out the entire Middle East, something that isn't feasible and quite possibly wouldn't work, anyway. Covert and guerilla fighters can't simply have the 'fight taken to them'. The real issue at heart here is increasing capitalism and its problems. Westernisation is threatening these people and they're reacting in the manner they feel will be successful. Integration needs to be considered and tested rather than the continued knee-jerk reaction which is continually used to satiate conservatives and voters. Lastly, to suggest that the Democrats would simply wait around and do nothing is an ad hominem that doesn't have a place in debates. It has a place in politics, something I am frustrated with everyday.



Just a quick personal opinion on V for Vendetta. Just another slapdash comment on the failings of democracy and modern government with some action thrown in. Yet another movie that fails to show some real insight and seriously consider some solutions and problems.

Thanks!

I guess only you could answer that.

Yeah, I figured youd say that. Guess im sorry. But thats the way ive been treated by other liberals, before I met the intelligent ones like yourself. There was this one kid I was arguing with once, I beat him, so he threw a hissy-fit and deleted the entire argument. But man, he was insane. No quarter given. Constant name calling and the like. You rarely come across "courtesy" in these types of arguments. You know how Ghandi said "I would have been a christian had it not been for christians?" I guess you could say the same about me and liberals. My problem is, from my past encounters, you cant be nice to your opponent. Goddess says you and her are pseudo-friends. I wish I could be the same way, but I just... cant.

They can do damage on a massive scale if they are allowed. Think about it. Ever since 9/11 our borders have still remained inexcusably porous. If the price was right, the criminal gangs that smuggle drugs and immigrants into this country could bring across nuclear devices, and deliver them to terrorist cells located inside the U.S.. It would be relatively simple to do. Most of those devices and their components are small and can be snuck in by shipping containers. These bombs do not even need to be large "city busters." A relatively small yield of twenty kilotons could cause catastrophic results in our major cities such as New York, Washington, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, and Miami.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans would be killed in an instant, with a much larger number horridly wounded. Beyond the human loss, there is our infrastructure. An attack of that size would cripple the nation's government, economy, ability to rebuild, and to strike back at our enemies. If a bomb were set off in front of the Library on Congress, it would destroy the Capitol and Supreme Court, pulverize government offices, including the Department of Health and Human Services (which is crucial to emergency actions), and kill many vital government members, such as the cabinet, senators and congressmen. The President, if he survived, would be rushed to an undisclosed location. At once our capital would be abandoned. Many other cities aforementioned are critical for our communications and news media, like New York, or gateways and ports to other parts of the world, such as Los Angeles and Miami.

Say once Americans understood what happened, we would still not know how it happened or who conducted the strike. If after some time we found out that, say, al-Qaeda was the culprit, what would our response be? Invade the countries where they are headquartered? Would we request extradition? What if we discovered that Iran had a hand in this? Would we decide against an all-out attack out of concern for the innocent Iranians behind whom their government would be hiding?

No matter how we would react, there would be no guarantee our allies would support us. Out of fear for having nukes located in their own cities, they could declare neutrality and deny us any form of support.

The whole matter of revenge is something to consider also. After 9/11 there was concern that the U.S. would "go Roman." Would the United States do to Afghanistan what Rome did to Carthage? As the events proved, the U.S. is not set in the Roman mold, and Bush did not begin a campaign of utter extermination in Afghanistan.

But know that if nuclear weapons are exploded on American soil, I support the whole idea of "going Roman." With many of our major cities shattered and millions of Americans dead or dying, a President who would not retaliate in some form would not remain President for long. The results of an all-out American counterattack would be profound: the deaths of perhaps tens of millions, the shock and distrust of our allies, and a dividing line in politics as that of the Civil War.

I present this scenario as a warning of the consequences of inaction and appeasement against global terrorist organizations, most largely the "Web of Terror," whose countries consist of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya. Out of these the U.S. has already changed two forcibly. If we act now, we can destroy the Web of Terror using less destructive methods. The alternative is to sit back, trust in the good intentions of those regimes who stated goal is our destruction, and be left with revenge as our only option.

I also present this scenario for another reason. Critics might call it "cowboy justice" or "international vigilantism." They might even call it "mass murder." But it is what would happen. Do I take perverse pleasure in the thought of all this? Far from it. That is why I am writing this.

In conclusion, I will pose this question to both of you. Hoping that you understand that all of this is a very real possibility, what do you and your parties plan to do about it? What is your solution? Backing out completely at this point is not an option. Were too knee-deep in this. But tell me, what is your plan?

By the way, just to clear a few things. I’m all for letting people have their rights. None of my ideas say they shouldn’t. Also im not Bush's biggest fan, but I do believe he was a better choice than Gore or Kerry.

This is a tough question for me. My political views are libertarian and we all know how often they get elected into office. I could probably vote for a libertarian candidate for a smaller office but as far as presidential elections go, I'm not so sure since I would be basically be throwing my vote away.

I'll probably look to see which candidate I like better and decide then since I'll be gaining and losing with either one I vote for. If I absolutely despise both R and D candidates then MAYBE I'll vote libertarian since I don't want to vote for someone I absolutely don't like.

I'm so glad I was 8 days too young for the last election.

By the way, just to clear a few things. I’m all for letting people have their rights. None of my ideas say they shouldn’t. Also im not Bush's biggest fan, but I do believe he was a better choice than Gore or Kerry.

Hey everyone, some last few things to say before you hit the poles tomorrow. I saw this touching piece, and thought you should see it...

"To all potential voters:
I am a concerned senior citizen. When President Clinton was in office, I had a nice house, a good job with many benefits, health insurance and even 2 vacation homes. In short, things were good. Since President Bush has been in office, I have lost my job and my health insurance. I have also lost 2 sons in Iraq. To add insult to injury I am now homeless and have lost everything I once had. I and we must be willing to do whatever John Kerry asks us to do. We must remove President Bush and get a Democrat back in the White House. Please consider my compelling personal story and vote John Kerry come election day.
Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein"

I want to let everyone know that the Iraq war was not about subjugating the Iraqi people, the destruction of Iraq's national identity, or the eradication of the Iraqi culture. It was about ousting a dictator who sponsored terrorism, pursued (and had used in the past) weapons of mass destruction*, enslaved the Iraqi people, and bent Iraq's national identity and culture to his own ends.

*Contrary to what some think, WMDs are not strictly nuclear devices. These also count for biological weaponry, which Hussein had used numerous times on his own people.

One last thing as well... why I fight. It’s a question I ask myself a lot, and I pondered it much today. You know what I believe? If liberals gain complete control, I feel my rights will be at much larger risk than Sadhana's "V for Vendetta" theory. Why? I’ve watched debates a long time, and I notice that liberals and democrats have a tendency to be extremely unforgiving to anyone who opposes their views. You want to hear something scary? In 2003, same-sex marriage was made legal in Canada. On top of that, you can be put in jail for speaking out against these couples and their way of life, as a preacher was some time ago. This is exactly what many liberals (not all, mind you) want here in the U.S.. Now, I don’t know about you, but thats a little messed up. That, my friends, is the reason I pursue my ideas so vigorously. I don’t want my children growing up in a place like that, and im sure neither do any of you. I have been put through the grinder by many people for my views, and I don’t regret any of it. Thank you for your time.

Is this person afraid/intimidated by same-sex marriages or the possibility that he and his children might not be allowed to oppose gay couples and alternative lifestyles in general in public? Or perhaps bit of both?

Overall this little letter (or whatever it was) creates mixed feelings in me. One part of me can understand that he wants to live in his own perfect world but then again it's people like him that make the lives of so many oh so difficult.

Well, for me that post did absolutely nothing, but I am not from USA anyway and we all know you people tend to be quite patriotic, some might even say bit too patriotic in some cases which blinds you somewhat in certain matters.
Post a picture of some random young soldier, add the American flag there somewhere, then few touching words and that will be your perfect recipe for the American people. :P

Oh, and for the record for those who did not figure it out, if I could vote in these elections I would have to give my vote to the democrats even though I do not really support them either in everything. Politicians, no matter what party they are from can just be so incredibly twisted sometimes.

Im saying the whole thought of being imprisoned for expressing your views troubles me.

No one said anything about a "perfect world." I know the world will never be "perfect" by anyone's standards, so I kinda dont know where you got that from.

Well, makes sense since your country, wherever you are, is most likely not threatened by destruction from terrorists. Nor were you attacked in a way in which 3000 of your citizens were killed. Then again, I dont know where your from.

By the way, this isnt anyone else's words, these are mine.

While I think that's really true and pretty funny, don't forget that there are Americans out there like me who aren't this nationalistic. ;)

But Canada's been like this about other things. Their hate propoganda law kind of vetos freedom of speech and religion, so it's not that these Canadians might be charged for saying hateful, prejudiced things only in regards to gays. They're just adding homosexuality to their anti-bias laws (I'm not Canadian, so anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Of course, the knurls of democracy and freedom in our American hearts bleed for the oil-pumped country of Iraq. Yet the government-sponsored genocide in Darfur (with as many casualties as Saddam's rein but in a shorter amount of time) doesn't matter quite as much. ^_~

LOL, oil. I laugh so hard when this is brought up. Yeah, I know, im just seeing 99 cent a gallon gas everywhere.

Yeah, Darfur kinda sucks, doesnt it? Hey, im not in charge. If I could say anything in defense of that, its not directly connected to the Web of Terror. Also the U.S. is kinda busy with other things (Iraq). While the U.N. could do something, world events has got that whole organization shakin in their boots. Btw, im still waiting for your Iraq policy...

Why I take that as a compliment! Guess I just love my country...

I think it's more likely that 'going Roman' would be playing right into the terrorists' hands, Bremic. I highly doubt that terrorists commit acts of terrorism with the intent to engage in peace talks. They want a reaction like the one you mentioned: 'an all out American counterattack'. And what would that achieve? More innocent people would die, with no guarantee that the real culprits would be captured, and like you said, the distrust and maybe even loss of the US allies. Sometimes war is neccessary, I'm not disputing that. But in the case of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, retaliation is what they're counting on.

Here in the UK, in the aftermath of the London bombings, an innocent man was shot and killed by the police. If they'd not gone down the 'shoot first, ask questions later' route, they'd have discovered that the man had nothing to do with the attacks. They shot him eight times because they suspected he was a suicide bomber. How do you think his family felt? Would you really support 'going Roman', an idea that would lead to the deaths of countless innocent people if it was someone close to you who was killed needlessly? Would you really just accept that it was for the 'greater good'? That they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

It's nothing but propaganda.

I did a bit of research on that. According to ReligiousTolerance.org it happened in Sweden. Was there another case that took place in Canada?

The preacher was sentenced to a month in prison. But this was Sweden, and that website states that in Canada C-250 means that a person would not be convicted 'if "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.'

There's a difference between simply expressing your views and being deliberately violent and hateful towards a certain group of people. If someone can take out an anti-gay advertisment expressing their views and not be convicted, I don't think you have anything to worry about unless you're planning on making some really despicable and hateful remarks that aren't connected to any religious beliefs you might have.

There's a clause that makes allowances for religion - as it says on RT.org, " In essence, the law states that the freedom of one person to express religiously-motivated hatred is given higher priority that the freedom of another person to be free of hatred expressed against them."

Agreed. ^_^ But yeah, although the majority of Americans may seem that way to me and you, there are people like Sadhana too.

Also agreed. Politicians might promise a great deal, but the likelihood of them following through with it isn't huge. Just look at the state of the NHS in the UK. Despite that, if I lived in America, I would vote Democrat, simply because their ideals are closer to what I agree with.

I know, it's interesting right? I'm still trying to figure out why Exxon Mobile had the greatest earnings last year in the history of the stock market when gas is about $2.50 a gallon.

There's a difference between nationalism and loving your country. I love America, I honestly do. But I am not a nationalist, and would never consider that a compliment. Nationalism is the idea that your country is greater than the others, and I believe too greatly in a worldwide, united humanity to support nationalism.

Neither was Iraq, lawl.

The US was kind of busy with finding Osama Bin Laden before we went into Iraq, so we don't seem to have too much of a problem with shifting priorities.

Ah, yes. The one thing that I admittedly am unsure of. I definitely don't support the war, and I don't think that being more forceful like you're suggesting would make things any better either. Should we pull out? I don't know. While I'm savvy in the world of politics, I have less training in the field of military tactics. What I do know is that this war is horrible, and Bush should be held accountable for lying about it in order to invade. I want us to get out of there as soon as we possibly can, but it's impossible for me to tell when that is.

If you had read closely what I actually wrote, I am AGAINST "going Roman." I put that whole scenario (once again, if you read it) up because it would show what would happen in the aftermath of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. It is not good at all, but once again, it is what would happen. Im also saying that the only way to prevent it is to destroy the Web of Terror, and dry up any assets the terrorists have.

Well I don’t know his exact words, but from what I heard he was just expressing his opinion.

United humanity? Correct me if im wrong, but you want everyone to be treated the same way, live equally? If thats the case, its been tried before, didn’t work. Go ask the Russians. "You get one, you get one, and you get one" works for grandfathers and their eight-year olds, not for governments and countries.

And if you mean "world peace," I do not believe in such a thing. The only way that can be achieved is... well... go watch "V for Vendetta." Know however, that my views do not concern world peace. Simply a more secure America, a thing the Dems seem to have no ideas on.

Actually, Iraq is considered part of the Web of Terror. Im currently reading a book called "Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror." Iraq is named among five other nations that consist of the Web of Terror. That is, countries who participate in and sponsor terrorist activities. The countries are Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya. The book is written by Lt. General Thomas McInerny (USAF ret.), and Maj. General Paul Vallely (US Army ret.). I guess I kinda trust these guy's opinions.

The U.S. wasn’t fighting a war on two fronts then, either.

You want to get the military point of view? I strongly recommend buying Endgame. Keep in mind that they keep it to mostly a military standpoint, so you wont see any over-the-top Bush praising either. Im fairly impressed with it so far.

As much as I dislike Capitalism (although I consider it the best economic system we have as of now), I dislike Communism much more. Rest assured, I wasn't talking about that.

Ehh, I'm not really saying world peace either. I guess I meant that I think humanity shouldn't be as divided as it is, where if a genocide isn't happening in your country, people don't care. More compassion and less geosentiment.

Because history hasn't proven that fighting a war on two fronts is a really dumb idea.

I might consider it, but I already don't like the implications made by the title.

What about us then? Didn't the American government support Hussein when he was releasing poison gas on the Kurds, poison gas that we sold to him?

Er, I did read what you said, Bremic. The above quote is what I was referring to.

That's why I quoted them, so you'd see what he actually said. Did you read my post? The only example of a preacher being jailed that I found was in Sweden, and according to the website I found,

He allegedly described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He described them as "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."

In Canada, the preacher would actually be immune from conviction because he was referring to his religious beliefs.

I don't agree. So the only way to prevent any further violence towards the US is to commit violence towards others? That's the only way to solve things? There was no retaliation by the UK to the IRA after the Manchester bombing, and in 2005 the IRA announced they were ending their armed campaign and "would not engage in any other activities whatsoever". So there is hope that peace talks and ceasefires can be successful.

Well I guess I dont know what you are. A hippy? Roflcopter. Jk. Sorta.

Humanity will always be divided. Even if people are put under forced "unity" like in V, humans will still have their own opinions.

Heh, well, some people actually want to do something about it.

Whole different world, whole different President. There are scumbags in both parties, ill go alert the media.

To Yukari:

You seem to forget that im talking about a situation in which millions of Americans have been killed, and with most of our major cities having gaping holes in them. No President in their right mind would sit still in a situation like that.

I didnt see that one :( . Only the one where the Bible was directly quoted. I see what you mean. Yeah, thats a bit extreme, and I dont agree with that. But still, things like this still seem kind of weak compared to seeing neo-nazis walk down your street doing the Nazi salute.

I've been accused of such. ;) If you want to categorize my economic outlook, call me a capitalist. For now. Until someone theorizes a system that I approve of more.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one. :peace:

In all seriousness, I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that people should be more compassionate towards one another because we're all humans, not allowing geosentiments to divide us.

Blueprint for the Victory in the War on Terror implies far too much that we should re-make the Middle East, something I strongly disapprove of.

That was in reference to something you said. Take a look back at what I was quoting. I meant that we've supported terrorist activities if being in "the web of terror" is categorized in the way you mentioned.

Well its time to fix those mistakes, isnt it?

My opinion is still the same. Violence in answer to violence only causes yet more violence. But be realistic here. The likelihood of that situation ever happening is extremely low. There'd have to be next to no security measures, no informants whatsoever, a perfect set of plans with none of the participants making any mistakes whatsoever, no intervention by anyone, and no suspicion on the police's part, no surveillance, nothing. Not gonna happen, not after 9/11. Don't you think that if they had the means and it was possible, Al Qaeda would have done so on 9/11 instead of attacking the WTC, or if not then, then by now at least? After all, these devices are so small and inconspicuous and could easily be sneaked in.

There's always going to be terrorism. Whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, that won't change. Even if key terrorist leaders were killed, it still wouldn't stop it. Killing ALL terrorists is impossible, and even that wouldn't stop it, because there's always people. People whose beliefs could change, children being born, new people with their own set of ideals and beliefs. People who could grow up to form a new terrorist group. Destroying the 'web of terror', will not stop terrorism.

:lmao: Imagine aaaaaall the people, living life in peaaaaace!

Quite the opposite, im afraid. As I said, the borders can be sealed up much more than they already are. There are still immigrants sneaking in every day, and whos to say that some of these could not be terrorists?

Now that is exactly what they want you to believe. They are simply waiting until we become so complacent that we let our guard down.

"We may not be able to save the world, well at least we try." As you think that it is me whos playing their game, im afraid it is you. They've instilled so much fear in you that you have no will to fight. That fits in exactly with the word "terrorism." Accepting defeat is an option, yes. But not an ideal one.

Work and uni study has forced me to miss much of the debate since my last post. I'll jump in where I can. I agree, in part, with the sentiments of Sadhana and Yukari so far.

Bremic

Quite the opposite, im afraid. As I said, the borders can be sealed up much more than they already are. There are still immigrants sneaking in every day, and whos to say that some of these could not be terrorists?

But how can immigrants be stopped from walking into any country completely? You'd virtually have to completely close off the nation and disallow ALL newcomers. Martial law might have to be put in place or at least drastically increased military action. Is there any country in the world that that reminds you of? North Korea comes to mind. This is a simple utilitarian question. Is the threat of terrorism from these incomers (which has never been proven with serious evidence to be particularly credible) worth shutting down the country and drastically lowering the freedom and sense of safety that are necessary to the high quality of life we enjoy? Further, the notion that some of these people might be carrying weapons of mass destruction and might be able to get them into the country is even smaller. Nuclear weapons, in particular, simply are not that easy to get your hands on. The processes required to generate the necessary materials are too closely guarded and occur in few places that have a high security focus. The more likely option would be a bomb surrounded by radioactive material. This is also incredibly unlikely but it does not have the potential to destroy a city as you are suggesting.

Now, before you reply I know you are not suggesting that these increased security measures be introduced. You are suggesting that we simply 'take out' the terrorists. My point is that this both misses the point and by necessity - unless you literally take out the entire middle east - cannot be effective. The nature of resistance fighters is that they have no allegiances and cannot be easily identified. Simply taking control of a country won't stop terrorists activities or get rid of them. It increases their support against a 'rampant US' and creates new members of yet another destroyed city. Iraq is the example of this. Feelings of hate and anger towards Americans have increased since the invasion not decreased. Why do you continue to think this strategy will work?

Every other similar situation in history I can think of has ended in the same fashion. When Russia was shelling Chechnya they weren't able to kill or debilitate those fighting. Completely outnumbered and outgeared the Chechnyans managed to, if not win the war, force Russia to give up on the campaign out of disillisionment. They had something to fight for whereas the Russians didn't. It is the same in this case. Iraqis have something to fight for at the moment. They won't quit until they get it. What do American or any other nation's soldiers have? Little to nothing. So many of the people in that campaign have expressed disillusionment. That is the problem with your piece of propoganda. It assumes they want to be there.

The answer to this is actually asking why these terrorists are fighting so ardently against the west. Why are they so driven? They fear that they are losing their very way of life. Their religion, their culture and their societies are being decimated by continued Western capitalism and globalisation without regard for the consequences. Don't get me wrong. I would say I'm a cautious supporter of globalisation. I think it is the only process by which a global community is possible. But without regard for consequences it is a knee jerk and dangerous procedure. Take this example.

Farming in Egypt was originally a widespread profession that was practiced with the intention of sustainability. A family would harvest crops and perhaps some livestock with the intention of feeding themselves and their family and little else. Egypt are next met by spreading Western corporations looking to expand industries and productivity. The farmers are no encouraged to start mass farming. Creating huge fields of densely laid crops and livestock for profit and not just sustainability. Naturally, this requires machinery, increased labour and chemicals for soils and to keep disease and insects away. This is money they don't readily have. But never fear, the world's major banks are only a step away to issue loans at massive interest for these people to continue their work. However, with such large financial pressures it is not possible that all can continue to keep their farms running. Eventually, perhaps by luck, a few farmers find they are generating the greatest harvest and making the largest returns. The other farmers are forced to sell their farms and machinery etc in order to pay back the loans. The successful farmers purchase these farms and increase their profit and wealth. Some of the disenfranchised people will by hired as labour, but not many due to the machinery that is more efficient. So, the rest are forced to find work to support their families elsewhere. They move to the cities, increasing urbanisation and things like disease, poor quality of water and violence start to increase. There is only so much work in these areas (usually for western corporations) and so many are left destitute, with families, on the streets. One organisation approaches to help. Terrorists. If they will help in regimes to fight back against the very Western 'campaign' that took their original livelihood away from them they will be able to support themselves and their families. What decision would you make in such a situation?

Western activity - including some of the measures you have suggested - propogates terrorism. We need to consider these concerns that the Middle East has and begin to confron them. We may not be immediately successful and may be met with frustration, but the longer we continue to consider compromise the more likely the general public will move away from these organisations, hamstringing the very thing they require; Western hatred.

Note that I am not suggesting that this will work. I only believe that it has a possibility and that it is a better idea than stubbornly continuing with a plan that has so utterly failed to this point. To continue against such obvious poor results is utterly stupid. It is the continued feelings of regret, fear and poor reasoning that the uneducated public harbour that stops us from doing any different.

They've instilled so much fear in you that you have no will to fight.

This isn't fear Bremic. You're saying such misrepresents us, our arguments and commits the straw man fallacy. I'm sorry to say it is poor reasoning. On the contrary taking the opposite path and considering talks and compromise with these nations is the option that carries the greatest strength through the greatest hardship in the same way that Jesus persecuted against the hardest of trials. Subjecting yourself to pain and torment for a future good is not a sign of fear. It is a sign of hope.

Just thought some people might like to know how this all went so far (these are all going by CNN)...

The Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives, with 227 seats to 194 and a handful still undecided. Our new Speaker of the House and in-line for the Presidency after Dick Cheney is Democrat Nancy Pelosi from California, America's first female Speaker of the House in history.

The Senate is at a gridlock right now, 49 seats for the Republicans and 49 seats for the Democrats with two states still undecided (counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat, I believe). The two senate seats left are Montana and Virginia. In both states, Democrats hold a slim lead.

In regards to governorship, there are now 28 Democrat governors and 20 Republican governors. Two are still undecided.

Sounds like the Antichrist and the New World Order...

Nearly half of the U.S./Mexico border is left unfenced, not to mention the entirely unprotected Canada border. Im not talking about shutting out all immigrants, only the illegal ones.

Would I completely seal up the borders in normal times? No. But the reality is these aren't normal times. Also, I dont need evidence, the possibilty of it is enough for me. Im really not wanting to take that risk. I also notice, by the way, that you are from Australia. If you aren't, just say so. But from what ive seen Australia isn't exactly the terrorist's target. If you actually lived in one of these American cities, you might think differently about it.

Because no one has come up with a better one. And from what I know about Radical Islam, they're not exactly into the whole peace thing.

You know what piece of history reminds me of this situation? World War 2. Before Hitler made any huge moves, he went around making peace treaties with everyone, and promising to them he wouldn't attack them. Poland was first. The rest of the world thought "well, maybe if we just leave him alone, he won't come after us." Hitler kept systematically taking over every country in Europe. By the time people actually realized what was happening, Europe was already screwed.

Thats the problem I see with your idea. Say we do step down. Say they dont. If we kept taking their attacks, we would eventually be worn down, easy victims to our enemies. And I can guarentee you that if that happens, the U.S. wont be the first and last target.

Well, the Michigan elects were last night, and the Republican candidate didn't win. *Sigh* This time, I actually was disappointed the Republican side didn't win governor. I mean, our current governor, got RE-ELECTED. She's been in office for 4 years, and what has she done? Lets see, people here who support her keep saying "OH, SHE'S BRINGING TEH JOBS TO MICHIGAN." Yeah, 4 years ago, we were ranked last in employement rate, and guess what? We still are. Where in the friggin hell are these jobs people said she brought?
We can't possibly fall any lower on employment, so why not elect someone new? Heaven borbids.... <_< We don't dare try someone new, and see if we they can help our state.
But, on the good side, the Morning Dove is saved! YAY! No need to worry about teh witto birdies gettin' shot by hunts. LOL, funny thing, they wanted to shoot the Morning doves for food. FOOD! Yeah, who in the right mind would shoot a Dove, for meat? You could probably get more meat off a mouse than a Dove. <_<

Yeah, when I was watching the elections last night from 7:00 PM to 1:00 AM, I noticed that your incumbent governor was reelected. Just a minor correction (and I mean minor), while Michigan had the highest unemployment rate four years ago, they are actually second to last now, just ahead of Mississippi.

Well. Jennifer Grandholm is the governor of Michigan, no? I don't know much at all about the state government of Michigan, but I was under the impression that the poor economy was largely out of her control. The unemployment hasn't been able to recover from the failing of Detroit's Big Three auto industry-- Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler. On top of that, the jobs are being outsourced due to more federally legislated pro-globalization trade arrangements. As far as I knew, she was trying to save jobs by giving out loans to failing industries in attempt to prevent cutbacks.

Bremic:

Yeah, that John Lennon was an evil one.

I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway. Hi, I live about twenty minutes away from Manhattan. If anything were to seriously happen to it, oh believe me, I would feel the effects. We felt them enough on 9/11, the details of which I went about in the fourth post of this topic.

Here's an excerpt from that monster of a post about my personal experience on September 11:

This is the point I want to make... I know what it's like to have been hurt by September 11. I know the fear it aroused in all of us. I was scared to death living in a post-9/11 world, only a 20 mile radius away from a city that I love but is the biggest American target for terrorists. I know these things as I've tried to illustrate through what I personally went through on that day five years ago (no, that's sooo not a reference to FFVII :lmao: ). But sometimes, people need to open their eyes.

I understand the fear and the willingness to make compromises for at least the illusion of safety. I'm still with Raist on this one. I don't consider my civil liberties that dispensible, and I don't think that illegal immigration is a worthy focus right now.

That's kind of a bad comparison. Nazi Germany under Hitler was a united country, not a band of terrorists few and far between, scattered across the Middle East. The terrorists are not a world power like Nazi Germany was. And besides, they went down the appeasment route because everyone had just come out of WWI, and they didn't want to jump into another war so soon. They knew that Hitler broke the appeasment agreement, but they didn't move on it because no one wanted a war. And besides, the terrorists aren't "systematically taking over every country in Europe." Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
-------------------

Anyways, I'm just happy that the Democrats ended up getting the majority I begged God for. We are now going to have our first female Speaker of the House, and she already plans to move on increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 this upcoming January. I was pleasantly shocked this afternoon when I heard that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is at last resigning. Hallelujah. Although I already disapprove of Bush's choice to nominate ex-DCI Robert Gates, especially with the whole Iran-Contra Affair he was involved in. But at least that's one step in the right direction.

Yup. All his pothead hippy followers would have certainly brought a better future...

....I found this. Photoshoped, yes, but hilarious. A special message from John Lennon.

Yeah, I know where you live. Thats why it wasn't addressed to you.

Ok, seriously, whats with all this civil liberties stuff? When have I ever mentioned giving them up? And yes, cracking down on illegal immigration is a start on securing the country. I am pleased however that not long ago Bush signed an act to put up more fencing along the U.S./Mexico border.

The whole notion of simply waiting and hoping for the best is what im talking about. In my opinion, its a big mistake. Also, Radical Islam would love to conquer Europe, and they are already in position to do so if they wanted. Their manifest destiny is to create an Islamic superstate spaning from Atlantic to Pacific. Do keep in mind that I do not speak of all muslims, only the radicals whos stated goal is to destroy the west.

About that link, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is actually not about LSD. It was about a drawing his son, Julian, drew at school about a girl named Lucy. And the drawing was entitled "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

'Cause everyone who listens to John Lennon is a pothead hippy. I must smoke hash and not even realize it. And my dad who was a huge Lennon fan and a hippy didn't help make the future any brighter when he founded and opened one of the most renowned private schools on Long Island. Or when he helped found an elementary school in Philidelphia that offered a free education to special ed students and children who had been emotionally/sexually abused. Nope, he filled the future with reefer addicts.

And yet you said that living in a targeted area would probably make people feel differently. I tell ya, New Yorkers just loooove everything being done in the name of security.

I consider it a civil liberty to be able to clothe and feed illegal immigrants without being arrested for it. I consider it a civil liberty to have private e-mails, phone conversations, and internet searches without wondering if the government is spying on me. I consider the writ of habeas corpus to be a civil liberty. All of these things have been attacked in the name of safety. That's why I mention it. Because you keep talking about safety.

Cracking down on illegal immigration is a start on securing the country? Hmm, I'd have to disagree. I think we face far greater threats than Mexicans who hop the border because they want greater economic opportunities. Illegal immigration threatens the country in so many more potent ways than in terms of terrorism (although I still think all of this wall stuff between America and Mexico is just an act of xenophobia).

Well, Raist has pretty much everything covered, and has said some things that I wanted to say, albeit in a much more well-thought out manner than I would have. :lol: But I do have a few things I'd like to mention.

You assumed that terroism has 'instilled so much fear' in me that I 'don't have the will to fight'. (Raist's response to that says it so much better than I ever could.) Look at what you said up there. Don't you think you're being a little paranoid? After 9/11, do you honestly think that anyone will be getting complacent anytime soon? I've got to wonder whether your belief that the terrorists are just sitting there waiting for the right moment to attack is something that has been instilled in you by the media's scaremongering.

How is accepting that terrorism isn't going to go away the same as accepting defeat? As long as there are people in this world, as long as there are disagreements and resentment and hatred, there will always be the potential for violence and acts of terrorism. But fighting will not solve the problem. It may delay things for a few months, or years, but it will not solve the problem. I will always favour compromise and open minded discussion over violence.

*sigh* Not gonna touch that comment.

lol the song really had nothing to do with the pic. Just made sense putting Beatles music in I suppose.

Did I say that?

Yeah, I suppose you could count that as a right. And yes, many immigrants who come here are hard working people. But there will always the be percentage who will try to steal from you, etc. What burns me is the ones who risk everything to get here, then two weeks later are waving their Mexican flags and saying how much the U.S. sucks. Like how once in school this hispanic kid kept giving me crap about the country was "all his." I almost said "f*** you" but decided he wasn't worth my time. A lot of them could be a little nicer...

I dont call it paranoid, I call it awareness. And its interesting how you said before...

You say that the worst is over and not to worry as much, but then you say not to become complacent. Doesnt that kind of contradict itself?

Your accepting defeat by doing what the terrorists want. The way terrorist organizations function is to threaten you, making you back down. And no, terrorism and its roots will never be fully destroyed. But it is possible to severly weaken them by taking major regimes that support them out of power. And im all for "discussion," but there is never any assurance that these organizations will act in good faith.

I just have to link this as someone decided to insult John Lennon and The Beatles. :P

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

I am glad there will be some changes in the US. It's about time everyone can see what the Democrats can do if anything. I doubt there will be any miracles, but when one party is in charge for as long as the Republicans were it's not good for the country, at least in my opinion.

My idea of the Beatles is like the one about Micheal Jackson (Thriller ftw). Awesome music? Yes. Weird people? Yes. That pic was just too funny though.

Bremic

Nearly half of the U.S./Mexico border is left unfenced, not to mention the entirely unprotected Canada border. Im not talking about shutting out all immigrants, only the illegal ones.

That is an issue that would be a concern regardless of the times. I have very little knowledge of the political and social implications involved with immigrants crossing that border and so I don't feel strongly about commenting on it, though I have to say that questioning the unprotected Candian border is almost suggesting that Canada's security is so lax as to allow terrorists with nucler weapons to walk in. My point was only that illegal immigrants are not something that can be easily stopped and there are limits to why you should do so. Australia has been struggling with it for years. With increased military activity we can catch 'boat people' (a derogatory comment if I've ever seen one. Brilliant politics, though) before they hit the country, but we can't turn them back with a good conscience on boats that were lucky to make it so far in the first place. Secondly, we've come under fire from human rights organisation for how they've been treated considering they are refugees. We hear the same concerns of terrorist threats to justify the acts but little has stuck and again we come back to their being little evidence that terrorists choose this method to infiltrate nation states. Illegal immigrants are not as easy to stop as you are suggesting. I am saying that to do so one needs to give up many of the freedoms that make our lives as good as they are. Is that worth it? Particularly, when this solution seems ad-hoc and redundant anyway.


Would I completely seal up the borders in normal times? No. But the reality is these aren't normal times. Also, I dont need evidence, the possibilty of it is enough for me. Im really not wanting to take that risk. I also notice, by the way, that you are from Australia. If you aren't, just say so. But from what ive seen Australia isn't exactly the terrorist's target. If you actually lived in one of these American cities, you might think differently about it.

There have been a few incidents of suggested threats against some major Australian cities recently. I live in the most isolated city in the world so we haven't been brought into it too much, but I know that some people in the eastern states have been a little concerned. I'm not sure how much truth there was to any of the supposed threats but that's been the case over the past five years. Ambiguity and misinformation. However, we were the focus of the Bali bmobings in 2003. Not nearly as devastating as 9/11, certainly, but still shows that we have been targets of terrorist attacks. Funnily enough, this happened not long after (if I remember correctly) Australia agreeing to enter the War on Iraq. I cannot say that I feel the fear that some might feel in major US cities, though some other Australians most likely can and do. But that is not entirely relevant to this debate. This question of safety needs to be weighed up with what it sacrifices and so often I think that goes back to Sadhana's Benjamin Franklin quote. It simply isn't worth it.

Are you suggesting that the possibility of something occurring is enough to draw you into action? You don't require adequate evidence to make a decision on something? Do you realise how dangerous a sentiment that is? Especially from someone planning on entering the military. We should effectively never move without adequate evidence for a decision. The War on Iraq should be reason enough for that.

The point about these not being normal times is rather ambiguous. I agree, they certainly aren't, but why? Terrorist attacks have to be considered but I keep coming back to the fact that there is an atmosphere of fear in the air. Fear that is fueled by the media and politicians. It changes countries, changes ideals and takes us away from the very culture and values we are supposed to be fighting for. These may not be normal times but that does not mean we being to use measures that run against the grain of our ideals.

Because no one has come up with a better one. And from what I know about Radical Islam, they're not exactly into the whole peace thing.

Do you realise that that is not an answer to my question? I asked you why you continue to think this idea will work. You said the above. That says nothing about why the current plan is supposed to work. You're intentionally diverting the focus onto the supposed failings of other parties in order to make your case seem stronger. What you have there is no argument at all. Again, I will ask you. Why do you think the current strategy against terrorism will work?

As for there being a better idea, I suggested one in my last post that you haven't commented on. I'd ask you to read it and critique it if you don't mind. Otherwise I can't help but feel that you're skipping a major part of this debate.

You know what piece of history reminds me of this situation? World War 2. Before Hitler made any huge moves, he went around making peace treaties with everyone, and promising to them he wouldn't attack them. Poland was first. The rest of the world thought "well, maybe if we just leave him alone, he won't come after us." Hitler kept systematically taking over every country in Europe. By the time people actually realized what was happening, Europe was already screwed.

I'm sorry to say this is a terrible analogy. There are far too many differences between the two situations for this parallel to be used. I think Sadhana presented the differences adequately but I would like to add one point. World War II was a war that could be won. It had a defined end that would come somewhat linearly. Thankfully, it came in our favour. This current war is not so obvious and will not have so finely ordered conclusions. Clear sides are difficult to determine and what exactly everyone is fighting is unclear. But one thing can be said for both times. We are fighting for our values and our culture as much as we may be fighting for ourselves. The moment we draw away from that we lose any justification we have to fight in the first place.

Thats the problem I see with your idea. Say we do step down. Say they dont. If we kept taking their attacks, we would eventually be worn down, easy victims to our enemies. And I can guarentee you that if that happens, the U.S. wont be the first and last target.

Why do you keep assuming we simply step down? Unfortunately I think politics requires some kind of political action after any terrorist attack but why is it always a war? They just aren't effective in stopping terrorist activity, nor in stopping terrorist fervour. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested simply standing down and hoping they give up. The idea is that we begin to talk openly with these organisations and try to make compromises. Regardless of what the media might be suggesting radical Islam is a major minority. However, it is growing with the continued actions of the US and the 'Coalition of the Willing' (both a piece bad politics and god-awful writing) against these nations. As we've said before. Knee jerk invasions do nothing to stop terrorist attacks, they only create further hatred that increases their future likelihood and potential to cause damage. You keep saying that no one has offered a better solution but you don't tell us why they are not better solutions. It is difficult to tell what their success would be without testing them, yet you are so adamant against this. Your current plan is effectivey trying to jam a square block into a triangle shaped hole. It won't work. It will never work. To continue in this venture is shortsighted.

It seems that our arguments so far have been appealing to a sense of rational desire to change our plans. We are arguing from reason to a goal that we think might offer better solutions. We are not saying they will, we are just hoping they will be attempted. While you continue to argue from fear. Your every argument says nothing about a solution or what may be the end result of all these campaigns but just that 'if we don't do this we'll all die'. Could you please start telling us how this war is going to end using the current game plan?

I would also like to make one point in regards to John Lennon. References to him personally have little to nothing to do with this debate. Sadhana quoted a line from his most famous song to attempt to show what her ideal is. You attacked John Lennon personally in a way that is not relevant to her actual point. That's a classic ad hominem fallacy and doesn't have a place in cogent debate. Then you argued against him from his association with drugs (LSD in particular) and again this an ad hominem fallacy and also a fallacy by association. Can we please leave John Lennon out of this debate?

I have on further question to ask you, Bremic. How do you feel about torture? Should we (well they are in Guantanamo Bay, but I won't get into that) be using torture on captured terrorists to gather information? How do you feel about this? I think this is a good analogous consideration for the entire War on Terror.

Yukari

You're far too kind, my dead. :blush:

Sadhana has the best hold on this debate. She knows far more about political issues than I do. I haven't read a newspaper in weeks.

Most of my work is with religion these days. You probably noticed the other threads.

Anyway, back to study I go.

Let me just redirect this.

The elections are over, and the votes are, for the most part, counted.

Democrats retook the house, and it seems like they might, just barely, take the senate too.

What, therefore, do you think of that? Do you think Congress will have the strength to force us out of Iraq whether Bush likes it or not? It is, in theory, possible for Congress to 'starve Bush out'...simply by refusing to vote for any more money for the war. At that point, Bush has to bring them home or they'll 'starve' for want of supplies.

Democrats don't actually need the Senate to do that, of course. They just need to refuse to begin any revenue bills in the House.

The War on Iraq was based on bad intelligence. No one lied to anybody.

Um, I thought it was an answer. And isnt that what people do in debates? I suppose theres no guarantee it will work, I never said it was foolproof. But unless some sort of peace talks take place, im sticking with that.

Also, I never meant you were talking about standing down completely, Im talking purely militarily.

Bah, was just a joke.

Thanks for bringing the convo back. I commented on this a little while back very briefly.

It's hard to tell what we're going to do now in regards to the war. The Democrats have had fairly differing ideas on where to go with Iraq. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfled resigned today, so that at least means that the illusion of a new direction in Iraq is already beginning (they've got to set themselves up for 2008 ;) ). I think we're going to see some social changes. Defecit spending might shift from military to social programs which is what I've been hoping for.

Isn't there always more crime when people are in poverty?

Agh... *is ashamed that she's a Mexican American* Speaking as a Hispanic, I think that the encounters you've had with those kinds of people aren't really the ones who risked everything. Their parents were the ones who risked everything. And kids take things for granted a lot. Besides, they're probably just talking about American culture. They love America for its economic opportunity, despite whether or not they'll say it.

If they were smart, I think, they'd take the man of action approach, and cut spending from whatever it is in Iraq to 0. That, again, uses the 'starve 'em out of Iraq' policy, which will show they can make real results that can make a difference in a very short amount of time when they try. Which sets THEM up well for '08. If Iraq explodes into civil war after that, or whatever, then it's no longer OUR problem. They can go spill their own blood over it.