"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somew

[g__day]

Perhaps Bush saw the Iraqi Information Minister website - "there are no WMD here" or "Saddam is still in power" etc and wanted his own version.

Bush is scary - too much power, too much attitude, too little brain and no sense of civil rights on an international basis. A real catalyst for terror.

 

[epicstruggle]

Bush is scary - too much power, too much attitude, too little brain and no sense of civil rights on an international basis. A real catalyst for terror.

Im not saying your wrong (or right for that matter) but how much daily coverage do you get of bush, his admin, his agenda and his beliefs? To form such an opinion.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Bush is scary -

Bush is refreshingly not to be intimidated by anyone, and has the resolve to follow-through on what he sets his mind to.

too much power,

As opposed to any other President of the U.S.?

too much attitude,

Yes....he's a gun-slinging' cow-boy....except in pre 9-11 where he didn't have "enough attitude" to do what needed to be done, right?

too little brain

Right...he's having his strings pulled by everyone else....

and no sense of civil rights on an international basis.

As I'm sure all those in Afghanistan in Iraq (particularly women) will agree.

A real catalyst for terror.

Implementing a real solution for terror.

 

[John Reynolds]

Implementing a real solution for terror.

LOL By doing exactly what bin Laden has been saying America would eventually do. AQ recruiting has probably never been better, and for every one we kill 2 or 3 more probably take their place.

No, the real solution is to kill their financial support by working with the governments of the world to realize that it's in no one's best interests to aid, in any way, terrorist organizations.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Implementing a real solution for terror.

LOL By doing exactly what bin Laden has been saying America would eventually do. AQ recruiting has probably never been better, and for every one we kill 2 or 3 more probably take their place.

No, the real solution is to kill their financial support by working with the governments of the world to realize that it's in no one's best interests to aid, in any way, terrorist organizations.

Well in all fairness, Bush has been very kind in working with Saudi Arabia....

 

[RussSchultz]

No, the real solution is to kill their financial support by working with the governments of the world to realize that it's in no one's best interests to aid, in any way, terrorist organizations.

The Bush admin is already working with the international community and financial support is drying up, and I don't see it as being at odds with also hunting down the leaders, and the leaders that take their place, and those leaders, etc.

What would you do differently than the status quo, beyond stating you'd do it correctly, as seems to be Kerry's mantra?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

LOL By doing exactly what bin Laden has been saying America would eventually do. AQ recruiting has probably never been better, and for every one we kill 2 or 3 more probably take their place.

First of all, that's an assumption pulled out of thin air.

Second of all, even if that were to be true, the question is not how many harbor "ill will" toward the U.S., it's the capacity and ability for them to do something about it.

Or are you so sure that 2 or 3 more recruits who have the U.S. constantly on their ass, are more of a threat than the one who doesn't?

No, the real solution is to kill their financial support...

You have to do that as well, and he (Bush) is. Where have you been?

 

[digitalwanderer]

The Bush admin is already working with the international community and financial support is drying up, and I don't see it as being at odds with also hunting down the leaders, and the leaders that take their place, and those leaders, etc

Are you talking about Bush's "Coalition of da Willing", both of them? :|

 

[Natoma]

What would you do differently than the status quo, beyond stating you'd do it correctly, as seems to be Kerry's mantra?

A good place to start would be to significantly draw down our troop strength in areas around the globe that don't need it, such as the 70K+ troops that are stationed in Germany, and reapportion them to the Afghanistan and Iraq.

And I wish Rumsfeld had listened to the generals in the pentagon who were talking 200-300K troops for the afghanistan endeavour, along with our high tech targetting and stealth technology, so that we could have taken the arms out of the hands of the tribal warlords who now dominate the country, terrorizing the people's of Afghanistan along the Afghan-Pakistan border, in our name, as well as had a better chance of cornering Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

Kerry's a goddamn blowhard. Don't even know why you're even paying attention to the crap he's saying about Iraq. He has no credibility imo.

 

[John Reynolds]

No, the real solution is to kill their financial support by working with the governments of the world to realize that it's in no one's best interests to aid, in any way, terrorist organizations.

The Bush admin is already working with the international community and financial support is drying up, and I don't see it as being at odds with also hunting down the leaders, and the leaders that take their place, and those leaders, etc.

What would you do differently than the status quo, beyond stating you'd do it correctly, as seems to be Kerry's mantra?

Russ, it's obvious my complaint has consistently been the invasion of Iraq (which my post alluded to). I'm hardly some peace activist who wants to sit back and sing kumbaya.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Russ, it's obvious my complaint has consistently been the invasion of Iraq (which my post alluded to). I'm hardly some peace activist who wants to sit back and sing kumbaya.

So, with the exception of Iraq, you have no problem, and even support, Bush's handling of the war on terror?

 

[digitalwanderer]

So, with the exception of Iraq, you have no problem, and even support, Bush's handling of the war on terror?

That's a pretty damned big exception Joe!

 

[RussSchultz]

What would you do differently than the status quo, beyond stating you'd do it correctly, as seems to be Kerry's mantra?

A good place to start would be to significantly draw down our troop strength in areas around the globe that don't need it, such as the 70K+ troops that are stationed in Germany, and reapportion them to the Afghanistan and Iraq.

The administration must have read your mind:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200403/26/eng20040326_138550.shtml
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=6030

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So, with the exception of Iraq, you have no problem, and even support, Bush's handling of the war on terror?

That's a pretty damned big exception Joe!

Yes, it is, but it's not the point.

John's prior post talked about "replacing a taken out terrorist with 2 or 3 more", and he's certainly not made it clear whether he believes or not that we should be actively taking out terrorists. I mean, "we'll just make them madder". (See arguments against Isreal's assissination...)

 

[RussSchultz]

The Bush admin is already working with the international community and financial support is drying up, and I don't see it as being at odds with also hunting down the leaders, and the leaders that take their place, and those leaders, etc

Are you talking about Bush's "Coalition of da Willing", both of them? :|

Do you even read the news past confirming your own partisan views?

No, really. Do you?

There have been many international cooperations concerning the financial networks of Al Qaeda. I won't bother to hunt up the news stories because they're too numerous.

 

[Natoma]

What would you do differently than the status quo, beyond stating you'd do it correctly, as seems to be Kerry's mantra?

A good place to start would be to significantly draw down our troop strength in areas around the globe that don't need it, such as the 70K+ troops that are stationed in Germany, and reapportion them to the Afghanistan and Iraq.

The administration must have read your mind:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200403/26/eng20040326_138550.shtml
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=6030

I wasn't aware of this. Good move. I've been saying this should have happened during the Afghan campaign, but definitely better late than never. Hopefully it won't take too long to get the troops acclimated to Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[John Reynolds]

That's a huge, huge if, Joe, one that I've previously stated was a colossal blunder that has left mud on our face and lowered the credibility of our fight against terrorism in the international community. Open to debate but I think to some degree we fulfilled bin Laden's predictions and his portrait of us as a nation, which, to whatever extent, must've raised his credibility in certain portions of the Muslim world. Thus my comment on AQ recruiting. Take out members, new ones replace them; take out leaders, someone will rise through their ranks to replace them.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hopefully it won't take too long to get the troops acclimated to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The pace of acclimation may be dependent in part on additional funding, so I hope you remember this thought in the future...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's a huge, huge if, Joe, one that I've previously stated was a colossal blunder that has left mud on our face and lowered the credibility of our fight against terrorism in the international community.

I still keep on hearing about this "myth" about our lowered credibility in our fight against terrorism. I don't see mud on our face, I see a free Iraq.

Open to debate but I think to some degree we fulfilled bin Laden's predictions and his portrait of us as a nation,

What predictions were they, John? That we would get pissed if someone flew planes into skyscrapers? He's a regular Nostradamus that bin Laden...

Thus my comment on AQ recruiting. Take out members, new ones replace them; take out leaders, someone will rise through their ranks to replace them.

And take them out, and the ones who replace them...and take them out too.

In the end, it will be a question of resolve. Are we going to be too weak to keep on taking them out (with every front page headline of another U.S. casualty in the war) and give up first?

 

[Natoma]

Hopefully it won't take too long to get the troops acclimated to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The pace of acclimation may be dependent in part on additional funding, so I hope you remember this thought in the future...

I have no problem with funding the troops. I do however have problems with not including that funding as part of the official budget because you don't want to make the budget figures look realistic in their representation of the yearly shortfall. Or adding in huge pork barrel spending to the appropriations bill in order to force people who want to fund the troops, but don't want to fund the pork, to make a decision that will be used against them later.

You know, the dirty underhanded political crap that gets attached to things that it has no business influencing.