The Terrorism thread

[Duppi_KronKite]

What if both religion and science are half truths yet propaganda and somewhere in the middle is the truth?

You can be an extreme religious nut and get air time. You can be an extreme science test tube queer and get air time. The moment you say you don't believe in either and present your own theory, you are called crazy. Why is this? Why no airtime for that guy?

Im surprised noone is talking about the action happening in the south by the Mexican/US border. Over 100 people have been killed in a month, couple of which were pigs.

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by Duppi KronKite
What if both religion and science are half truths yet propaganda and somewhere in the middle is the truth?

You can be an extreme religious nut and get air time. You can be an extreme science test tube queer and get air time. The moment you say you don't believe in either and present your own theory, you are called crazy. Why is this? Why no airtime for that guy?

Exactly. I can't say I'm definetly either or. I consider myself a "religious athiest", as I do believe in the scriptures, maybe not as the church would have us to accept. But I am intelligent enough to see the advancements going on in science.

 

[Shafty]

What if both religion and science are half truths yet propaganda and somewhere in the middle is the truth?

You can be an extreme religious nut and get air time. You can be an extreme science test tube queer and get air time. The moment you say you don't believe in either and present your own theory, you are called crazy. Why is this? Why no airtime for that guy?

Exactly. I agree with you and Kal-El on this: both the extremes of pedantic mainstream science AND religious fundamentalism are very rigid and restricting (and often fallable) ways of relating to the world and the universe around us. They both claim to offer all the answers in a neat, predigested package, and yet are full of fallacies and contradictions. Science asks you to place all of your trust in something that is constantly changing and evolving, often in very radical ways- to a degree where the science of today would seem like witchcraft and herecy to the peoples of yesterday, and where the absolute and irrefutable universal truths are no more than somebody's personal best guess, agreed upon by an elite group of like minded people. Science often fails because of its own innate arrogance: that which cannot be explained is too easily filed under "fringe science" and dismissed (maybe reflecting the weakness man has; a need to control and be able to explain his surroundings down to the finest detail, ignoring that which cannot be explained under the 'accepted' set of rules), even when it would merit very thorough research and an open minded approach.
Religion fails for much the same reasons, except that it doesn't evolve like science does (the ground rules do change, though, but only in how different sects of a given religion interpret them: i.e. the word of god changes by the hand of man- just one of the contradicitons of religion). All organized religions thrive on stagnation and the willingness of the masses to be deceived and spoon fed. It's much easier to place your faith in a preconstructed set of rules that provide the ultimate safety net (explaining life after death) than it is to build your personal perspective from scratch, and perhaps come to grips with the fact that you cannot have the answers to many of the biggest questions life presents until your time here on earth is up.
I prefer an independant perspective, free of both the uncertain extremes of science AND the rigid and suffocating oppression of organized belief systems.

 

[Duppi_KronKite]

I came across this video, although it doesn't relate to the London Attacks it is good viewing material either way.

 

[Bib]

koooky,

>No, WHat I think he COULD have done was to take some of Clinton's team's advice before he even officially got the office. There seems to be more and more info coming out that there were redflags all over the guys who were here and making the plans. Call me crazy, but it just seems to me that something on that large of a scale could have been preventable. Don't ask me how, because I honestly don't know.<

What advice from Clinton? Clinton had THREE opportunities to kill Bin Laden, and did not do it. Bush's opportunity may have come at Tora Bora, and was lost. That could be a fault, but it will probably be a while before we know for sure.

Right now, Bush can violate Pakistani sovereignty, and go get Bin Laden. Might be a good idea.

>I'll tell you what Bib, I'll give you that I honestly am not sure WHAT could have been done and I will also give you that he isn't ever REALLY on vacation, if you will give me my point about Clinton or Gore. Had that happened under either of them, the GOP would have crucified both of them within weeks and made it look like they were asleep at the wheel.<

If you mean at the end of the last Clinton term, I agree with you. After everything died down, the right would have crucified them. No doubt.

>And why not invade SA? Are they going to have a complete democracy soon?<

Hopefully, they will soon. We will have to wait and see what the new Monarch does. Even though he has had true power for a while, it is under his name now. SA is not without fault. But they are trying to a certain extent.

Why is it that SA has suffered many terrorist attacks? Also many other middle eastern countries that support anti-terrorist efforts. But no terrorist attacks in Iran or Syria? Or France for that matter? Makes it easy to draw some conclusions.

>Didn't SA support Hammas, a known terrorsit organization?<

I do not know that the SA government has ever supported Hamas. I do know that many individuals in SA support many terrorist organizations. As do many individuals in many different countries.

I do know that Iraq, under Saddam, openly supported many terrorist organizations, as does Iran and Syria.

>Anyway, regardless of how you answer or comment to anything further, I see no real point in discussing it further. You have shown to defend Bush as an absolute and apparently you agree with him when he was asked during the last campaign about any mistakes he has made when he said he couldn't think of any.<

Why do you wish to apply standards to my beliefs? I surely have not laid out everything I believe in my posts. Bush has been WAY too timid in his was on terror. The Iranian nuclear situation needs a lot more pressure from the US. Syria should have already been taken out of the equation. Invaded with regime change. Pakistan should either deliver Bin Laden, or allow US forces into Pakistan, NOW. Many other things I can think of that I would do differently.

However, Bush has done more than ANY democrat would have done.

>Maybe you think it's ok that American's are dying everyday in defense of another country.<

Yes, I do. Same as in almost any other war within US history. Just because the people are brown, and Muslims, and not French, does not mean they are not equal. They deserve freedom also.

>Maybe you think it's ok that military folks are being HELD AGAINST THEIR WILL, even though their commitment times are up.<

They signed up, and the extensions were in their contracts. Thankfully, most do not mind further service.

>Maybe you think it's ok that they tried to cut military seperation pay and medical benifeits for inactive duty solders' families who were being sent to Iraq.<

The defense department, and Bush in particular, were against those cuts, and in fact, increased them. Along with numerous other benefits to military personel and families. Bush has supported the military more than ANY previous administration, particularly the Clinton administration.

>Maybe you think it's ok that that we got Hussen but Bin Laden is still free.<

I surely do not. I think if needed, we should violate Pakistani soveriegnty.

>Maybe you think it's ok that he dishonored/disrespected fighter pilots every where by NOT showing up for his flight physical, thereby going DNF(Duties not Flying), when he was SUPPOSED to be training as a fighter pilot.<

Get a grip. This was completely investigated, Dan Rather lost his job, and Bush was not touched. Get over it.

>Maybe you think it's ok that gays do not have equal rights in this country.<

No, I believe gays have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else. I am against them have super-rights above everyone else.

>Maybe you think it's ok to amend the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights instead of protect them.<

I am not familiar with any constitutional amendments being considered that would do this.

>Maybe you think it's ok that while we are getting closer to $3.00 a gallon for gas, all the oil companies are setting record profit margins.<

Yes. I think that is fine, on just about every front. It will provide capital for future exploration, as well as investment in alternative fuels. It will tend to lower consumption. Further, it is not close to the highest prices vs income. I might worry if the price got over $5 per gallon.

>Maybe you think it's ok that we are limiting stem-cell research.<

Under Bush, more money has been allocated for stem cell research than ever in history. That he refuses money for stem cell research using viable eggs is correct IMO. Until this country decides the age at which a human, or potential human, receives his constitutional rights, nothing can be decided on the subject.

This area is completely stupid. Everyone shouts about rights this, and rights that. But nobody ever addresses the other side of setting; time. There must be an exact moment when an entity receives his/her rights.

>Maybe you think it's ok that he cut the funding to find the un-accounted for attache nuclear bombs that these terrorist are working hard to get--and it would be VERY easy to get into this country because;<

Have no idea what you mean.

>Maybe you think it's ok that our borders ARE NOT as sealed as they should be and only 5-15% of cargo is actually inspected thus allowing someone to sneak in one of the items from above.<

Yes. I am not familiar with the classified information on what is being done on our borders and in our ports. I do know that there are multiple systems being used to moniter the borders and ports, and identify and catch potential terrorists and/or weapons. For obvious reasons, I am glad I, and hopefully the terrorists, do not know.

I am also glad that Hispanics, who wish to come to the US and do nothing but work and support their families, are allowed to do so. I never want to live in a country that "seals" it's borders.

>Maybe you think it's ok that "No Child Left Behind" is leaving A LOT of children behind.<

Bullshit. I am very familiar with the changes in our education system. The changes are working. But our education system was so bad when Bush came to office, it will take time for the changes to reap benefits. NCLB is working very well. In fact, much better than anyone speculated it would.

>Maybe you think it's ok to drag TWO decorated Vietnam Vets through the mud on your way to the White House.<

I have no idea who you mean. Al? I never heard or read of Bush dragging any Vets through the mud.

>And finally, Maybe you think it's ok to have the only president EVER convicted of a crime.<

If you consider his DWI in the 70's a crime, and are upset about it, you are petty. Yes, I think that passes my lights test. I think it is a much worse crime for a sitting president, the leader of the executive branch, to lie to the judicial branch of government under oath, setting a grave standard for not only ever future president, but for every single American. I suppose it would be fine for anyone under oath to lie now.

IMO, Bush is not close to perfect. But he beats the hell out of anything the democrats have to offer.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

Kal,

>Yes, of course, especially since they have this new president, but like I said when we invaded Iraq, there were at least a handful of greater threats to us then.<

One thing at a time, and in it's own time.

>Not at all, but lets not forget other terrorist groups. Al-Qaueda seems like the most organized and largest, but we can't forget others.<

So you are saying you have no point?

>This crisis in Chenya is breeding alot of terrorists.<

Where is Chenya? Do you mean Chechnya? If so, that is another Muslim situation involving Russia. There are many factors to be considered in the situation. Uppermost is probably the fact that Russia does not seem to be able to relinquish control of former holdings, and does not recognize the difference between peaceful Muslims, and terrorists.

>Bib, it was the Saudis who denied requests to turn over to the US any Saudi links to terrorism<

Bullshit. Give your sources for this. They have not only provided information, they have actually captured suspected terrorists, and allowed US operatives to question them.

>and also they refused to leat any US planes who were targeting the Taliban, take off from Saudi soil.<

And the US agreed with this stance. We did not wish to inflate anymore middle eastern problems by using air basis in the home of Mecca and Medina to go and kill other Muslims. Makes perfect sense to me. Also, we had many other options. Why use the area of Muslim holy sites to bomb other Muslims if you do not have to? This is also why we moved that air base.

There are many other reasons to indict SA, which you did not mention. However, your reasons are unfounded.

>Bush-Saudi ties go back decades- as does the US willingness to turn a "blind eye" to evil, just for the sake of oil.<

Oh horseshit. If the US was only concerned about oil, how come the US and UK were the ONLY fucking countries trying to enforce the Iraqi oil embargo? How come France, Germany, Russia, et al, were finding ways to violate the embargo? There are many other recent instances where the US supported reduced oil flow, in the name of fighting evil.

The SA monarchy surely has it's faults. But it is a damn site better than many other countries of the region.

>The first Bush White House was dominated by executives who made millions on arms deals with the Saudi rulers. And at that time, the CIA was helping to arm and train Osama Bin Laden's mostly Saudi mujahiddin to fight the Soviets in Afganistan. (Meanwhile Saddam Hussein - an ally when he was all that stood between Iran and the Saudi oil feilds-had just become an enemy for threating these oil feilds himself.)<

What is your point....again? Capitalism is bad? That we should have assisted the Soviets in aquiring another satellite state? That the US could have known Bin Laden would turn into a nut job? That Saddam would have turned into a nut job?

As with most people who have no point, and lack a sound basis in reasoning, you continue to use hindsight to attempt to make points which have no merit. All judgements would be sound if everyone had your ability to judge past decisions on current events. However, leaders do not have the ability to see into the future. They must go by their best estimates of how things will work out. Concerning the above, the decisions were correct, both at that time, and today. Russia had to be stopped, and Iran was an avowed enemy of the US.

>Through the 90s, even after the 1993 attack on the world trade center and the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers, the FBI, when offered evidence of Saudi-Al- Quaeda links, was told to "see no evil". The Administration wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of ignoring any terrorist connection.<

And who was the fucking president at that time Kal? Perhaps if he had not been getting blowjobs in the Oval Office, he could have handled those tips.

You are a piece of work.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

Kal,

I should have also said, the SA, US air base was for protection of SA alone. Nothing else.

Bigger

 

[iwant8inches]

Clinton was President for about 3 weeks wasn't he when the first WTC attacks happened?

 

[koooky]

Bib,

"Maybe you think it's ok that American's are dying everyday in defense of another country.

Yes, I do. Same as in almost any other war within US history. Just because the people are brown, and Muslims, and not French, does not mean they are not equal. They deserve freedom also."

--Did you understand the question here? You think it's ok that US Soldiers are DYDING in defense of another country???? You think its ok that US forces are dying to free another country??? I am not saying some countries deserve freedom or not, but how about THEY fight for their freedom. Is it up to the US to fight for freedom for EVERY opressed country in the world? IF so, when is SA next or other countries? WHy did we never attack Russia to "free" them? Why have we never attacked Cuba to free them?


"Maybe you think it's ok that military folks are being HELD AGAINST THEIR WILL, even though their commitment times are up.

They signed up, and the extensions were in their contracts. Thankfully, most do not mind further service."

---Wow. That's a very cavalier attitude for someone NOT stuck in a combat zone and should have been home 6 months ago. Do you have family currently stuck there that do not mind further service. Do you think this might be one reason that the military will fail in it's recruitment goal?

"Maybe you think it's ok that that we got Hussen but Bin Laden is still free.

I surely do not. I think if needed, we should violate Pakistani soveriegnty."

--Actually Bib, this is where you and I agree. I would have violated ANYONE'S borders to capture this man. All efforts should have been on him. Not starting another war, violating another nation's soveriegnty, for someone who had not attacked us.
Do you think all the effort spent on Iraq would have been better served capturing Bin Laden? Not a trick question, just one or the other.


"Maybe you think it's ok that he dishonored/disrespected fighter pilots every where by NOT showing up for his flight physical, thereby going DNF(Duties not Flying), when he was SUPPOSED to be training as a fighter pilot.

Get a grip. This was completely investigated, Dan Rather lost his job, and Bush was not touched. Get over it."

--You are right. It was investigated and HE DID skip his flight physical. Therefore he WAS DNF and therefore he could not perform the duties he was trained to do. Ask other combat pilots if it would bother them if a pilot did that intentionally. I am sitting next to one right now and guess what, it bothers her ALOT that he skipped his flight phtsical.


"Maybe you think it's ok that gays do not have equal rights in this country.

No, I believe gays have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else. I am against them have super-rights above everyone else"

---Really??? You think Gays have equal rights? So having the same rights of marriage that straight people have is considered "super-rights"? You have the right to marry the person of your choice, get divorced, and do it all over agin as many times as you would like...gay people do not have that right so therefore they DO NOT have equal rights.

"Maybe you think it's ok that we are limiting stem-cell research.

Under Bush, more money has been allocated for stem cell research than ever in history. That he refuses money for stem cell research using viable eggs is correct IMO. Until this country decides the age at which a human, or potential human, receives his constitutional rights, nothing can be decided on the subject."

--So in this vein, abortion is next? Until abortion becomes illegal, it seems this matter has already been decided.

"Maybe you think it's ok that he cut the funding to find the un-accounted for attache nuclear bombs that these terrorist are working hard to get--and it would be VERY easy to get into this country because;

Have no idea what you mean"

----When the USSR broke up--they started to try and account for all of their attache type strategic nuclear weapons. There were about 80 unaccounted for. Clinton allocated x amount of dollars to track and account for these weapons. Bush cut the funding for this program thus we have 80 some nuclear weapons still unaccounted for and the terrorist are just dying to get hold of one. With the ease in which people/things can get in this country, how long before they, with all of Bin Laden's money, acquire one and get it into a major port city?

"And finally, Maybe you think it's ok to have the only president EVER convicted of a crime."

If you consider his DWI in the 70's a crime, and are upset about it, you are petty. Yes, I think that passes my lights test. I think it is a much worse crime for a sitting president, the leader of the executive branch, to lie to the judicial branch of government under oath, setting a grave standard for not only ever future president, but for every single American. I suppose it would be fine for anyone under oath to lie now."

--The question of whether I consider it a crime isn't the point. IT IS a crime. I don't have to consider it. Clinton was aquitted of the impeacHydromaxent process. Bush was found guilty. You go figure. I think it is JUST as bad for a sitting president to lie to the world in claiming a country had WMD's and then attack that country when they did not. And when no direct link can be found to Iraq and the event of 9/11.

Just to set the record straight, this is the FIRST time I have ever voted democrat. I voted for Bush the first time and For his dad twice. My biggest problem with Bush is starting a war with Iraq when we had not finished in capturing Bin Laden and the fact that he has lost more jobs that any president in about 50 or so years. Those are my biggest gripes with Bush. I am sure I could think of more.

kook

 

[Duppi_KronKite]

Clinton was President for about 3 weeks wasn't he when the first WTC attacks happened?

Something like that.

Stupid bastard should have just parked the van by the main support column like he was supposed to. The buildings would have came down then and right now we wouldn't have any rights.

If my government is going to take my rights, they should just go ahead and do so. Im tired of this waiting game.

Oh well, the nukes are supposed to be setting off pretty soon so then the powers that be will have their way and keep me settled.

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by Bib
One thing at a time, and in it's own time

Huh? I didn't quite get that

So you are saying you have no point?

I'm saying sure Iran is a threat, but there's definetly other rouge countries out there.

Where is Chenya? Do you mean Chechnya? If so, that is another Muslim situation involving Russia. There are many factors to be considered in the situation. Uppermost is probably the fact that Russia does not seem to be able to relinquish control of former holdings, and does not recognize the difference between peaceful Muslims, and terrorists.

I misspelled Chechnya. Sorry about that. Sure the problem there is mainly Muslims, but another problem is the Russian security forces. This internal "war" has caused almost half of the population of Chechnya to go into exile or get murdered.

Bullshit. Give your sources for this. They have not only provided information, they have actually captured suspected terrorists, and allowed US operatives to question them.

You want a link do you? Well, I'm sorry, but I do not get all my info off the internet.

The SA monarchy surely has it's faults. But it is a damn site better than many other countries of the region.

Yea right, SA represts EVERYTHING the American Revolution stood against. Tyranny, religious intolerance, corrupt royalty, and ignorance. Executions are held for the public to watch, torture is normal in prison, and your "Whabbism" is the state religion. Actually, it's really hard to see how Saddam's brutal Iraq was any worse than the brutal theocracy run by SA.

What is your point....again? Capitalism is bad? That we should have assisted the Soviets in aquiring another satellite state? That the US could have known Bin Laden would turn into a nut job? That Saddam would have turned into a nut job?

My point is do you ever wonder why much of the world sees the US as the world's biggest hipocrite? As for Capitalism, I think it is wrong becuase it enslaves people to money, benefiting a few on the backs of others.

And who was the fucking president at that time Kal? Perhaps if he had not been getting blowjobs in the Oval Office, he could have handled those tips.

You might have a point, but Clinton did'nt ignore near as many warnings as Bush. He ignored warnings in January 2001 from the outgoing Clinton National security team that al-Qaueda and its sleeper cells in the US were the major security threat facing the US, failed to take any action whatsoever against the Taliban regime in Afganistan even after figuring out in Febuary 2001 that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the October 2000 attack on USS Cole, he gave the Taliban $43 million in April 2001- mostly for the regime's outlawing opium growing as "against the will of god". (at the same time, the UN was imposing sanctions on the Taliban regime for refusing to turn over Bin Laden), he, among other things, prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi ties to Al-Qaeda.

I should have also said, the SA, US air base was for protection of SA alone. Nothing else.

Well, if that's the case, then why didn't SA let the US warplanes take off from there to target the Taliban in Afganistan?

Bib, the truth is Saudi Arabia should have been the hot topic of terrorism, not Iraq in the days after 9-11. Instead, within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the warmongers in the White House rushed to use the tragedy as an excuse for a long-dreamed invasion of Iraq. At this time, and after Two wars to make the Mid East safe for Saudis, wars by the way that cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives, the price of oil is swelling- up 42% from a year ago. It's a good thing we just passed a half-ass energy bill that will do nothing to solvent our dependence on foreign oil.

As the terrorist attacks in Bagdad, London, and elsewhere continue, Bush prattles on in his latest speech,( I believe it was two Wedsdays ago) about his victories in the imaginary "war on terror". This is a sorry rhetorical device that hides the fact that the forces of Islamic Fanaticism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world, are indeed stronger than ever.

 

[Duppi_KronKite]

Maybe such "warnings" are ignored on purpose to insure the purpose for big government??

The left hand President passes his torch to the right hand President who are both running for the same finish line. Nobody notices because one is Right wing and the other is Left so they must have different destinations.

Like I said earlier, lets all hurry up and just give up our rights so that these attacks will stop. You and I both know they are going to keep happening until we do.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Bib
Under Bush, more money has been allocated for stem cell research than ever in history. That he refuses money for stem cell research using viable eggs is correct IMO. Until this country decides the age at which a human, or potential human, receives his constitutional rights, nothing can be decided on the subject.

Bush has only allocated money for Current stem cell lines. I don't uderstand the reasoning behind why you Republicans are so against stem cell research? All those against science are hypocrites because they themselves benefit from science everyday without realizing it; in other words, they don't know how to see and they forget where they come from.

As for those who are against "stem cells", I simply ask them to sign a statement certifying that they will never benefit from the medical cures that will come out of stem cell research, not them or their families, even if they are really sick. Let's help them be consistent!

 

[Bib]

koooky,

>Did you understand the question here? You think it's ok that US Soldiers are DYDING in defense of another country????<

Yes. Same as with France, Belgium, UK, Baltic States, North Africa, Philippines, and many many other countries where US servicemen are buried.

>You think its ok that US forces are dying to free another country???<

Yes, same answer as above.

>I am not saying some countries deserve freedom or not, but how about THEY fight for their freedom.<

The Iraqis are obviously fighting, and dying for their freedom, even as we write these posts.

>Is it up to the US to fight for freedom for EVERY oppressed country in the world?<

If the hope for peace and freedom is to be realized, oppression must be braced at every opportunity where success can be reasonably assured.

>IF so, when is SA next or other countries?<

If they do not continue with their reforms, then surely SA must be addressed. Hopefully, diplomacy will continue to work in the case of SA. I see no diplomatic cure for Iran or Syria. But others do. So they should have the opportunity to at least try a diplomatic solution.

>WHy did we never attack Russia to "free" them?<

Because the odds of success in a conventional war were not great. While it took fifty years, the cold war stance of the US was eventually successful. But many lives were sacrificed to keep the USSR in check during those fifty years.

Interesting this: After WWII, we had the opportunity to go into almost any country, using threat of nuclear weapons, and do as we wished. No other country had a deterrent. However, the US did nothing with this advantage.

However, at that time, we did not know what the post WWII attitude and intentions were of Stalin. Had we known his intention to build an empire, and enslave millions, perhaps we would have used the nuclear threat to unseat him. Then, Stalin attained his own nuclear threat, and that opportunity was over. Hindsight is wonderful.

>Why have we never attacked Cuba to free them?<

Obviously because first, Cuba is not a security threat, at this time, to the US. And secondly, because Castro is very popular, in general, with his people, and MOST do not appear oppressed. Hard to free a population if they do not want your help.

Iraq was a totally opposite scenario.

>---Wow. That's a very cavalier attitude for someone NOT stuck in a combat zone and should have been home 6 months ago. Do you have family currently stuck there that do not mind further service.<

Yes. And many friends as well. They are all of very high character, extremely noble.

>Do you think this might be one reason that the military will fail in it's recruitment goal?<

Actually, the military only failed in recruitment for a short time. I understand they are well above their goals at this time. There will always be those willing to sacrifice for the greater good. They are known as heroes.

>All efforts should have been on him. Not starting another war, violating another nation's sovereignty, for someone who had not attacked us.<

No, I do not agree with that. Nobody seems to fully understand that this is a global war. The focus is not now, and should not be, on countries per se, but rather on threats, individual and cells. The decision to go into a country is based on how to best attack and dissolve a threat. If the country where the individuals or cells is cooperating, then the host country should be given the opportunity to take out the threat. If the host country is not cooperating, then military or covert means must be looked at to take out the threat.

As of now, SA, Pakistan, and many other countries are cooperating, to one degree or another. Syria and Iran are not at all. Funny, the countries that are cooperating are suffering from terrorist attacks within those countries. Countries that are not cooperating are suffering no terrorist attacks. Ah, a clue.

Bin Laden must be captured or killed, if he is not dead already. But that is because he is one of a collection of threats. The other threats cannot be ignored. Saddam was a threat that had to be addressed immediately, because of his history of supporting terrorism, both with money and arms, as well as giving them sanctuary. Terrorism had been expanded greatly, under the banner of Wahhabism, because of the terrorist new found wealth. Saddam was a great source for future risks, because of his wealth.

>for someone who had not attacked us.<

Saddam was attacking us almost every day, firing at US and UK planes patrolling the no fly zone, as per legal UN sanctions. He should have been taken out for these actions alone. But it was the obvious risk of his future cooperation with terrorists that was his greatest threat. Please realize, and I am sure you do; Al Queda is looking daily for bigger and better means to kill more westerners. That is their single biggest goal; to find a faster, more efficient way to kill us. Saddam most assuredly would have helped them in this goal.

>Do you think all the effort spent on Iraq would have been better served capturing Bin Laden? Not a trick question, just one or the other.<

Obviously not. It is a totally stupid subject. Afghanistan came under coalition control quickly, and has remained that way. No more troops were, or are needed in the area. If Bin Laden is alive, he is in the border region of Pakistan, and currently cannot be touched by the west, without violation of Pakistani sovereignty. They show no signs of ever letting us into the country willingly, to find Bin Laden.

If the conclusion is drawn that Pakistan is not cooperating in rooting out Al Queda in Pakistan, then the decision to go into Pakistan with military, or covert force, must be made. Until that time, no more troops are needed. Obviously, with the Pakistani claims of support for the west, and against terrorists, they had to be given a chance to prove their metal. So far, some great successes, but some failures also.

Saying that we are not going after Bin Laden with enough force is stupid. No more can be done at this time. But let me ask you a question: What do you think Bin Laden thinks about our actions in Iraq? For it or agin it? I would say it scares the hell out of him.

>--You are right. It was investigated and HE DID skip his flight physical. Therefore he WAS DNF and therefore he could not perform the duties he was trained to do.<

And it was investigated at the time, and he was given clearance to go off line adn miss his physical. Perhaps after the fact, but he was still cleared. He was honorably discharged! He violated NOTHING. The Air Force knew where he was, and what he was doing, and agreed with it! Get over it!

>Ask other combat pilots if it would bother them if a pilot did that intentionally.<

You MUST be joking! Bush is supported overwhelming by current and former military, including combat pilots! I am sure you know this, and will admit it. Even after absurd investigation by the left wing press, they could not find any of his military peers that had a beef with him. They had to resort to interviewing a mindless SECRETARY, with little if any knowledge, but who was negative toward Bush. That was ALL that they could get, so they went with the most negative they could find. How trite.

>I am sitting next to one right now and guess what, it bothers her ALOT that he skipped his flight phtsical.<

And I am sure her political stance has nothing to do with her opinion. I am sure she looked at the situation logically, and with no personal thoughts attached. Right. As I am sure you know, she is in the great minority.

>---Really??? You think Gays have equal rights? So having the same rights of marriage that straight people have is considered "super-rights"? You have the right to marry the person of your choice, get divorced, and do it all over agin as many times as you would like...gay people do not have that right so therefore they DO NOT have equal rights.<

Bullshit. You are attempting to redirect and redefine the entire subject, which is marriage. Marriage has, for several THOUSAND years at least, been defined as a union between a husband and wife, a man and a woman. Not two men or two women, or two men and a woman, or two women and a man, or a man and a goat, or any other selection you care to dream up. One man and one woman. Any person in the US has the right to MARRY any ONE person of the opposite sex, as long as they are not closely related. Each person has EXACTLY the same rights of marriage as any other person.

Unless and until you are able to change the definition of marriage, there is not even a question. Now, if two people of the same sex want to have a relationship, that is fine. But it in no way resembles, or fits, the ages old definition of marriage.

Further, I find the following quite funny. Most if not all of the people clamoring for gay "marriage", also are for total separation of church and state. And yet, historically, and factually, marriage is a religious institution. And covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It was brought into the realm of "state", by those wishing to prevent things like incest. A marriage license became a requirement.

Now, gays are seeking to bring this religious event into the realm of "state" fully. How funny.

As far as economic and other considerations, there is nothing wrong with adjusting laws to allow for things like pension redirection, etc. Gays should be able to pass on, or do whatever they wish with their assets. If you want to call it a civil union, then fine. But it can never be marriage. It does not fit the definition.

>--So in this vein, abortion is next? Until abortion becomes illegal, it seems this matter has already been decided.<

Once again, it is stupid to even have any of these conversations, unless and until we as a nation define WHEN a human entity receives his/her rights. People talk about women&#8217;s reproductive and other rights, but WHEN do females even receive those rights? When they are born? How about if they have one foot in the birth canal? What if just the head is exposed? How about the day before birth? No rights then? How about the month before birth? Perhaps they should get their rights only when they have the ability to speak, and present their case for existence? After all, if they cannot speak, they are not really a problem, right?

Or what about the ability for cognitive thought? I cannot remember anything before I was about four years of age. Perhaps it is ok to kill toddlers? But then, many people say they can actually remember time within their mother's womb. God says he knows us within the womb.

Tricky thoughts. But it all comes back to timing. If those frozen embryos are human, and have the potential for life, there is at least a case for examining what rights they might have. This has NOT been examined.

>----When the USSR broke up--they started to try and account for all of their attache type strategic nuclear weapons. There were about 80 unaccounted for. Clinton allocated x amount of dollars to track and account for these weapons. Bush cut the funding for this program thus we have 80 some nuclear weapons still unaccounted for and the terrorist are just dying to get hold of one. With the ease in which people/things can get in this country, how long before they, with all of Bin Laden's money, acquire one and get it into a major port city?<

I must plead ignorance on this topic. But I will research it. So you are saying, these bombs are no longer being searched for? Or you question the vigor of the search?

>--The question of whether I consider it a crime isn't the point. IT IS a crime. I don't have to consider it.<

Surely you do. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime. I would venture that every single president within the last fifty years has violated some driving law, whether caught or not. That you are being so petty about Bush's record speaks volumes.

>Clinton was aquitted of the impeacHydromaxent process.<

But not the criminal process. He was found GUILTY of perjury, lost his law license, and had to pay a large fine.

In my opinion, Bush's crime was much less than Clinton's crime.

>Bush was found guilty. You go figure. I think it is JUST as bad for a sitting president to lie to the world in claiming a country had WMD's and then attack that country when they did not.<

Bullshit. It is not a lie if you believe what you are saying at the time is the truth. Remember, George Tenet, appointed as CIA chief by Bill Clinton, is the person who told George Bush, that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk". That Bush repeated this cannot be called a lie. Further, the fact is, WMD MAY have been in Iraq, and either hidden, sent to Syria, or flushed down the Tigris river. We may never know the true threats at the time of invasion. But the question still has not been answered; why did Saddam have all of his anti-WMD equipment forward deployed at the time of invasion? He well knew that the coalition did not have any WMD for use on the battlefield.

Further, what possible difference could it make if WMD were present, when the fact was, Saddam planned to start his bio and chem programs back up after the heat was off. This is the conclusion of both the Kay report, and the Dulfer report. ALL of the WMD threats were still present with Saddam in power. What difference could it make whether he had WMD for immediate use, or within a couple months? Why do you think he was continuing to improve his missile delivery systems, in violation of UN sanctions?

>And when no direct link can be found to Iraq and the event of 9/11.<

And Bush NEVER said there were. Go through the Administration web site, searching for the key words, and find ONE instance. I did the search. He never linked Iraq to 9/11. His point was ALWAYS that Iraq could fund or help in future terrorist threats, which we now know, he was.

>Just to set the record straight, this is the FIRST time I have ever voted democrat. I voted for Bush the first time and For his dad twice. My biggest problem with Bush is starting a war with Iraq when we had not finished in capturing Bin Laden and the fact that he has lost more jobs that any president in about 50 or so years.<

Good for you. Your side lost. And your point about the jobs issue is false. Bush now has a net gain of about 1.2 million jobs. It was the declining Clinton economy that put him in the red for a while. Surely you will admit that, and agree that he could not be responsible for the expanding jobless rate when he took office.

Now that Bush's economic programs have had time to work, the economy is growing at fantastic rates. Jobs are being added at tremendous rates. The deficit has been cut almost in half, just as he predicted. You need to be honest in your writing, and more importantly with yourself.

>Those are my biggest gripes with Bush. I am sure I could think of more.<

I can think of many more gripes over Bush, mainly that he has not been conservative enough. Too much spending. The government has become larger. He has also not been forward enough in the fight against terrorism. I can still see clearly in my mind's eye, the towers on fire, and people jumping to their deaths. I feel he has withdrawn somewhat with the passive bleating from the left. He should ignore them, and press on agressively against Syria and Iran. Also, North Korea if six nation talks break down.

But as I said, he beats the living hell out of anything the democrats have. Their rhetoric scares the hell out of me.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

Kal,

>Huh? I didn't quite get that<

Each situation concerning the war on terror is different. For example, Saddam was a threat, considering his wealth, and ability to provide WMD to terrorists. He was supporting terrorists, and giving them sanctuary. He was a greater threat at the time than say Iran or Syria.

On the other hand, North Korea is a threat for the proliferation, and possible use, of nuclear weapons. But there is hope that through six party talks, they can be controlled. Diplomacy may also work with Iran, but I do not personally think so.

What are you suggesting, that we should have invaded many countries instead of, or in addition to Iraq?

>I'm saying sure Iran is a threat, but there's definetly other rouge countries out there.<

So take them all out at the same time?

>I misspelled Chechnya. Sorry about that.<

No problem. I misspell often. I was just not clear on the subject at hand.

>Sure the problem there is mainly Muslims, but another problem is the Russian security forces. This internal "war" has caused almost half of the population of Chechnya to go into exile or get murdered.<

I would agree that Russia has gone much too far in their fight against terrorism. They should, and indeed must, be able to judge good peaceful Muslims vs extremists.

>You want a link do you? Well, I'm sorry, but I do not get all my info off the internet.<

Any siting will do. Just do not throw out something which is patently false, a lie, and then not back it up. SA is being attacked quite often by extremists because of their anti-terrorist actions. To say they have done nothing is blatently false.

>Yea right, SA represts EVERYTHING the American Revolution stood against. Tyranny, religious intolerance, corrupt royalty, and ignorance. Executions are held for the public to watch, torture is normal in prison, and your "Whabbism" is the state religion. Actually, it's really hard to see how Saddam's brutal Iraq was any worse than the brutal theocracy run by SA.<

You must be joking. Think up any type of system for judgement you wish, and SA is better in every regard than Iraq was under Saddam. Same for Iran, and Afghanistan before liberation. Jordan and Eygpt are rather harsh also, but are getting better.

But the question is, is SA headed in the right direction? By almost any standard, the answer must be yes. They now have local elections. The radical views are being removed from the Madrases. Terrorists are being captured and/or killed. Women's rights conversations are being advanced. The same cannot be said for many other areas of the world.

>My point is do you ever wonder why much of the world sees the US as the world's biggest hipocrite?<

No. I do not worry about it much. I look at individual actions, to judge whether they are right or wrong. Things like, bombing a mild factory in the Sudan: Wrong. Invading Iraq: Right. Violating the oil for food program and UN sanctions: Wrong. Invading Afghanistan: Right.

>As for Capitalism, I think it is wrong becuase it enslaves people to money, benefiting a few on the backs of others.<

Oh bullshit. Capitalism is the most democratic economic system ever devised. That is why it is so strong. It is also why communism is dead, and socialism is dying. Some random elite group cannot make economic decisions nearly as well as a free market can.

As history has shown, capitalism is a great tool for the underclass to rise in class. Communism and socialism, the opposite. Under these other systems, only the decision makers rise in class. The elite end up as the ONLY priviledged class.

>You might have a point, but Clinton did'nt ignore near as many warnings as Bush.<

So what warnings do you mean? Don't make a generalized statement like that. Provide some specifics. So what did Clinton do to fight terrorism? I can wait.

>He ignored warnings in January 2001 from the outgoing Clinton National security team that al-Qaueda and its sleeper cells in the US were the major security threat facing the US, failed to take any action whatsoever against the Taliban regime in Afganistan even after figuring out in Febuary 2001 that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the October 2000 attack on USS Cole, he gave the Taliban $43 million in April 2001- mostly for the regime's outlawing opium growing as "against the will of god". (at the same time, the UN was imposing sanctions on the Taliban regime for refusing to turn over Bin Laden), he, among other things, prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi ties to Al-Qaeda.<

The sleeper cell situation begs the question: Why did Clinton not do something about the sleeper cells? What could he or Bush have done about them, with a lack of a crime? You are being hypocritical.

Taliban: You are simply bizarre. Taking facts and twisting them any way possible to try and make a point. The US provided much more humanitarian aid to Afghanistan than $43 million. The money was to try and save lives.

You must not realize that the Taliban and Al Queda are seperate entities. The first was the government of Afghanistan, and the second a terroist organization. The following link provides the details on aid to Afghanistan:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30166

As far as the Cole goes: Do you think we should have invaded Afghanistan after the Cole was bombed? Is that rational without all knowledge of the situation?

Saudi ties to Al-Qaeda: "he, among other things, prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi ties to Al-Qaeda". Where are your facts? This claim is obviously wrong, since we now have a ton of information, and are getting more all the time, on ties between individuals in SA, and Al Queda, and SA is helping to do it. How bad can you get?

>Well, if that's the case, then why didn't SA let the US warplanes take off from there to target the Taliban in Afganistan?<

Do you pay any fucking attention at all? The air base was for fighting possible Iraq/Saddam agression. Not for bombing other Muslims. The bombing could NOT be seen as coming from the home of Mecca and Medina. The US DID NOT want to use that base for offensive operations.

>Bib, the truth is Saudi Arabia should have been the hot topic of terrorism, not Iraq in the days after 9-11.<

Had SA not immediately began cooperation, they probably would have been a direct offensive target.

>Instead, within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the warmongers in the White House rushed to use the tragedy as an excuse for a long-dreamed invasion of Iraq.<

Bullshit. This farce has been proven incorrect time and again. For you to drag it up simply shows how predjudiced you are. After 9/11, Bush only asked for the offensive plan for the invasion of Iraq to be updated. Given the lack of knowledge at the time, this was a prudent step. You are pitiful.

>At this time, and after Two wars to make the Mid East safe for Saudis, wars by the way that cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives, the price of oil is swelling- up 42% from a year ago.<

You are something. I know you are a cool-aid drinker, but are you so stupid that you must throw out this shit? You have said the wars were for oil, and now bitch because the price of oil is up. Which is it? Did we invade Iraq for oil? If so, where is it? Why are we not flooded with it? Or is this a supply demand problem caused by increased usage by China and India? What should Bush do, bomb China and India industrial sectors?

>It's a good thing we just passed a half-ass energy bill that will do nothing to solvent our dependence on foreign oil.<

No, but drilling in ANWAR will help our dependence on foreign oil. If the fucking democrats will let us do it. Who is holding up a truly comprehensive energy plan?

>As the terrorist attacks in Bagdad, London, and elsewhere continue, Bush prattles on in his latest speech,( I believe it was two Wedsdays ago) about his victories in the imaginary "war on terror". This is a sorry rhetorical device that hides the fact that the forces of Islamic Fanaticism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world, are indeed stronger than ever.<

What is your source of information that they are stronger? They may be more obvious, but are being defeated at every turn. Sorry about that for your sake. I know you would like the radicals to be more successful.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

Kal,

>Bush has only allocated money for Current stem cell lines.<

Still, more money than any previous administration. What is your point?

>I don't uderstand the reasoning behind why you Republicans are so against stem cell research?<

Who said they are? Obviously, they are for the research, because of allocating so much federal money for the purpose.

>ll those against science are hypocrites because they themselves benefit from science everyday without realizing it; in other words, they don't know how to see and they forget where they come from.<

Who exactly is against science?

>As for those who are against "stem cells", I simply ask them to sign a statement certifying that they will never benefit from the medical cures that will come out of stem cell research, not them or their families, even if they are really sick. Let's help them be consistent!<

Ok, sounds good. You make up the forms, and we can try to get them out there. It still sucks to be you.

You obviously know nothing of the debate. So let me help you: Bush is against destroying viable embryos for research upon them. The question is, do these viable embryos, as human entities, have any human rights? For me and many others, it is a valid question that has not been addressed.

Are you saying you are for dismissing human rights questions out of hand? When do you believe a human acquires his/her human rights? Particularly, the right to life?

Bigger

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Bib
Still, more money than any previous administration. What is your point?

Correct, but is'nt it also true that stem cell research was not an issue in previous administrations?

Who said they are? Obviously, they are for the research, because of allocating so much federal money for the purpose.

It is fact that most republicans, well religious-inspired ones, are against this, because of the ethics involved. There are no consequences if it is done by competent people. As time goes by, more people will learn the benefits of stem cell research. Look at Bill Frist's "flip-flop" on the issue.

Who exactly is against science?

The Pope and religious institutions. These people think that science and technology is progressing too fast, and want to keep everyone "shackeled" in the dark ages. I say the more we go "too far" , the less we fall behind. Science is the doorway to happiness. It frees our time so we can live better. We don't realize how hard our ancestor's lives were. Short trips were a whole expedition. Today we can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours. People used to have to break ice to get water in winter. I ask you this, why do some people regret the past?

Oh bullshit. Capitalism is the most democratic economic system ever devised. That is why it is so strong. It is also why communism is dead, and socialism is dying. Some random elite group cannot make economic decisions nearly as well as a free market can.

As history has shown, capitalism is a great tool for the underclass to rise in class. Communism and socialism, the opposite. Under these other systems, only the decision makers rise in class. The elite end up as the ONLY priviledged class.

When I said Capitalism is wrong, I was thinking for the future. For now, the idea that a world without money is still too utopian, so for now Captalism is good. Capitalism allows those who contribute most to society to help it develope and progress and to make discoveries. Capitalism also allows scientific and technological developement.

 

[koooky]

Bib,

You know, for all of our obvious difference politically, there is actually one thing that I see myself much more hardcore than you. And that is the absolute priorty that Bin Laden MUST be captured or killed.

You seem to think it was ok to defer to another country's borders, or leave it to someone else, or to ignore him and concentrate on Iraq/Hussen. Whatever. I am complete the opposite. I think other borders be damned. Before we went after Iraq and founs Saddam hiding down in a rat hole, our absolute focus should have been on Bin Laden. Pakisat/India/Syria/Whoever doesn't like it? TOUGH! We got 200,000 strong waiting at your door and you got 1 week to hand him over or we're coming in after him. Period. I know that may not be "politically correct" but who cares. Bush pissed off half the world to begin with so if people are going to be pissed anyway, GET THE FUCKING GUY! I know you would probably list half a dozen reason of why we should let other countries at least TRY to do the right thing but you know what, fuck that. I know you think I am 100% wrong, but thems the breaks. I think Bush/GOP would have made a MUCH larger statement by saying to these other countries, "we don't care about what your 'official' government policy is, we know he's there and we're coming in for him". Had this been done by election time and had Bush trotted out Bin Laden buck naked and strapped to a Dialysis(sp) machine at the GOP convention, I would have had a billboard for Bush in my front yard the next day.

Call me crazy or an extremist or whatever you like, But the manpower, money, equipment, and focus would have went a lot further in defeating terrorism by capturing this guy than any other thing.

kook

 

[Bib]

Kal,

>Correct, but is'nt it also true that stem cell research was not an issue in previous administrations?

No, that is not true. It was surely an issue with the Clintons. It is not a question of whether or not stem cell research is continued. It will be. It is solely the question of the rights, if any, of viable human embryos, that might be used for new lines. That's it.

And these questions must always be addressed. This might be a poor comparison in this instance, but remember, Josef Mengele was a scientist who some offered as a man advancing knowledge and better quality of life by killing and experimenting on Jews and others. I am sure you agree he went too far in the cause of science.

>It is fact that most republicans, well religious-inspired ones, are against this, because of the ethics involved.<

They are ONLY against using viable human embryos to provide new cell lines. Hell, the new federal funds for stem cell research were passed by a Republican House and Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

>There are no consequences if it is done by competent people. As time goes by, more people will learn the benefits of stem cell research. Look at Bill Frist's "flip-flop" on the issue.<

Frist's stance is about the oddest thing I have ever seen. In one sentence he says we must guard all human life, and then says we should use viable human embryos. I think he was drinking when he made that speech.

>The Pope and religious institutions. These people think that science and technology is progressing too fast, and want to keep everyone "shackeled" in the dark ages. I say the more we go "too far" , the less we fall behind. Science is the doorway to happiness. It frees our time so we can live better. We don't realize how hard our ancestor's lives were. Short trips were a whole expedition. Today we can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours. People used to have to break ice to get water in winter. I ask you this, why do some people regret the past?<

I agree.

>When I said Capitalism is wrong, I was thinking for the future. For now, the idea that a world without money is still too utopian, so for now Captalism is good. Capitalism allows those who contribute most to society to help it develope and progress and to make discoveries. Capitalism also allows scientific and technological developement.<

Well, Capitalism is as utopian as it gets. It allows for a fair judgement of any individuals contributions, and allows for a fair judgement of what his/her compensation should be. Surely there are tweaks needed for certain situations, and they regularly occur as a matter of course. But no "committee" can do nearly as good a job as what a true and fair market can do.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

koooky,

>You know, for all of our obvious difference politically, there is actually one thing that I see myself much more hardcore than you. And that is the absolute priorty that Bin Laden MUST be captured or killed.<

I would surely like to see him brought to justice. But concerning countries that are cooperating in the war on terror, I would prefer to continue to have that cooperation. To me, I would think it would be easier to catch more bad guys with that cooperation.

For example, SA just caught the number one Al Queda guy in SA. This guy had been helping Al Zarquawi in Iraq with supplies and people. The Saudis have now caught or killed 24 out of the top 26 Al Queda members in SA. Pakistan has a similar record.

But I fully agree that at some point, they must agree to have US help, in country, in rooting out Bin Laden and his cadre in the mountains along the border. That is, if they do not catch him soon. And also, providing he is still alive, which I am not sure he is.

>You seem to think it was ok to defer to another country's borders, or leave it to someone else, or to ignore him and concentrate on Iraq/Hussen.<

Well, we surely have not ignored him, or left it to anyone else per se. We have left it to the Pakistanis to find him within Pakistan. For now, I think that was the right move. Iraq obviously did not detract from any actions in Afghanistan, or along the Pakistani border. Much good has been done, and Afghanistan is relatively quiet. Coming along nicely in fact.

If we violate another countries borders, that is tantamount to war. People talk about Iraq causing more terrorists to be formed. I tend to think more along the lines of Iraq drawing out people that are likely to be terrorists anyway, or bringing terrorists into the light. But much thought must be put into going into another country, if only to catch Bin Laden. Violating the sovereignty of other countries would surely be found to smack of imperialism, especially if they are already cooperating.

>Whatever. I am complete the opposite. I think other borders be damned. Before we went after Iraq and founs Saddam hiding down in a rat hole, our absolute focus should have been on Bin Laden. Pakisat/India/Syria/Whoever doesn't like it? TOUGH! We got 200,000 strong waiting at your door and you got 1 week to hand him over or we're coming in after him. Period. I know that may not be "politically correct" but who cares.<

Like I said, if the countries are cooperating, why piss them off? If they are not cooperating, then fine.

>Bush pissed off half the world to begin with so if people are going to be pissed anyway, GET THE FUCKING GUY! I know you would probably list half a dozen reason of why we should let other countries at least TRY to do the right thing but you know what, fuck that. I know you think I am 100% wrong, but thems the breaks. I think Bush/GOP would have made a MUCH larger statement by saying to these other countries, "we don't care about what your 'official' government policy is, we know he's there and we're coming in for him". Had this been done by election time and had Bush trotted out Bin Laden buck naked and strapped to a Dialysis(sp) machine at the GOP convention, I would have had a billboard for Bush in my front yard the next day.<

Even if I don't fully agree, I surely understand you. Concerning public opinion, there is something really funny going on right now. Bush's poll numbers on the handling of Iraq and the war on terror are going down. The liberal media display this along liberal lines, making it seem that folks want us out of Iraq, or to pull back, etc. They make it seem that the American people want a more passive approach. Then, I realized that is not the case. Surely there are some with that opinion. But I think most people are like me, and to an extent you. They want MORE action. More signs of an offensive against terrorism. More shots of guys in cuffs.

So Bush is losing points on both sides of the spectrum. From folks that want us to pull back, and those that want us to go forward much more forcefully. I am in that second camp.

To be honest, I am thinking more like you all the time. I am not happy with the amount we are doing. I think Bush is fading from the liberal heat a bit, rather than pushing forward as he should. But I think some tough dialouge should occur with Pakistan before we violate their borders. As I said before, I believe Syria should have ALREADY been taken out of the equation. They have no military to speak of, and are helping terrorist organizations immensely. And not just Al Queda.

>Call me crazy or an extremist or whatever you like, But the manpower, money, equipment, and focus would have went a lot further in defeating terrorism by capturing this guy than any other thing.<

It is a valid point. But I think our military can do many things at the same time.

Good stuff.

Bigger