So sick of actors...

Brandon Im affraid that 9-11 was unavoidable. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Americans as a whole have gotten lazy,sloppy and very comfortable. Who here can say even after 9-11 actually think anything like that will happen again? Or how many of you take our terror alert status seriously. Ill have to be honest even with all my travel I dont take it serious enough or even change my lifestyle accordingly.

We piss people off all the time and are the ONLY country to drop a nuclear device on anyone. Killing hundreds of thousands instantly,and thousands more to die for years to come there after. People dont forget things like that. We didnt enter WWII til AFTER we were bombed by Japan. By that time 3 million Jews had already died and many more were to come.

Now Kev Im not saying Suddam isnt a bad man. Not in the least, he deffinately is my perferred poster at the gun range. All Im saying is in 20 years 200,000 lives is small potatos. More people die by motorcycle in America than that.

And as far as Korea goes or anyone else that we may soon have future conflicts with. Since we are better trained and more advanced any oposition has nothing to lose and may use what they have as an advantage to over military might. Because the whole world would turn on the US if we droped Another bomb on a lesser power that we can defeat.

Let us not forget when we droped the bomb on Japan we were already on there soil and Germany had already surrendered 2 months before we dropped on Japan.

Whats the point of this long list of words.

It only took David one stone to bring down Goliath.

Well, like Mike said, this is a war, that was STARTED in 91, and is not finished. If the U.N. wants to make itself the Leauge of Nations, then fine, but I'm glad the current Admin feels its necessary to stand up for the U.N. and the U.S. intrests.

If you want to say 9-11 was enivetable, fine, just remember who was pres when the 1st WTC boming happend, and the Cole, and the 2 Embesays. All the other prez did was launch a couple of missles, to distract from the hummer he got, and not the actual threat to the nation.No protests filled the streets at that time so there seems to be a double standard there, but I wont go into that now.

As for the statement that Saddam is a 2nd rate ldr of a 3rd world country, then think of this... Someone who was NOT a leader of a country at all was able to bring down the World Trade Center, and killed over 3000 in that act. That act is also part of this action. We are in fact fighting Al-Quida, in the north, and they would not be there in that area if not for Iraqi Gov. support for sure.

IMO about who would be next, I may be a 'Hawk' but I have to quote the statement on 9-12-01 "Your either with us or agenst us" it cant be plainer than that. I dont want us to roll over nations willy-nilly, but they should be aware that we COULD if necessary.

Something that Druge stated was that some of the celebs (thought I wouldnt stay on topic ) that Chris Rock, who last week called OUR Prez, a Drunkard, and an Idiot, has now turned around his opinion, and is now 'fully' in support of the war, and the prez. Obviously to gain veiwers for his new film and not his real views.

Lastly, I have to point out that the 'Peace' protests, are actually not, they are disruptive at least, and violent at the most, and if you have to wonder more... Well... put it this way, the PRO war demonstrations dont require lots of security in order to voice their opinion. The people who feel they have to pull ordinary people out of their cars and beat them in front of cameras, sould tell you right there that is not a protest about 'Peace' at all!

I'm Glad also to see the support for the troops, no matter what side, and have no problem seperating the political views of even the most extreem, from the person itself. And I hope everyone else can... Even though I wont see a Susan Seranwrap film again, or a Michal Moore.

And would you fault the Philistines for going after David before he picked up the stone... But its a very tenuious relationship you established between the two events in history. This one is more David killing Goliath BEFORE they ever threatened the homeland of David. If you see that point of view then you might get closer to how the Defence Dept is taking things.

Thats all I got for now.. Hopefully for all its over quickly (8-9 days is not quick in any war btw)and history will show who was in the right.



EDIT: Who was is the right? er... its gooder american now

Not that I'm against ya Jaret, cause i've already spoken out my opinion. But just remember the old saying that: History is told by those who live to tell it.

Again, i'm for the war. And for Bush. And DEFINATELY for our troops! Just wanted to throw that out there though.


-------
EDIT- misspelled JERET'S name...

Thats right History is written by the Victors not the losers. And who was president when ,what happened where doesnt matter. Those events happen every day overseas which just stengthens my point that we have become too comfortable. Yet again if you so blindly follow with out all the facts then you will fall for anything. This isnt a matter of political correctness this is a personal vendetta towards those with associations with questionable people. And in case you missed this lil tid bit, Osamma and his forces were trained by the none other than the US. Again let me firmly say I dont agree with the War, But I fully Support OUR troops that live and die by executive decision.

Oh and nothing personal but if you take weight in what a hollywood comedian says, then I question your judgement of information. Because anything that comes out of Chris Rocks mouth is either written for him or B.S.

If you havent seen the Commericial that was created by senator Fred Thompson I advise you to see that before responding. I admire his courage and stand behind what he says 100%. Tried to find it for ya but couldnt find it on the web.

I normally dislike pasting huge posts, but instead of pasting a link, I felt this article should be read by all. It was written before military action was taken, but should help people realize what I've thought about for quite some time.
--------------------------------------------
Spot The Difference
Bush and Clinton on Iraq

Here's a simple pop-quiz. Who said the following: "What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Full marks if you guessed Bill Clinton. It was 1998. But I wonder how many of you did. The political amnesia of so many in Europe with regard to the Iraq crisis is one of the most striking aspects of the whole current trans-Atlantic divide. To read the papers, to watch the "anti-war" protestors, to listen to the BBC, you'd easily imagine that out of the blue a belligerent and brand new American administration had just torn up the old rule book and started a new foreign policy utterly unconnected to the old one.

The truth, however, is that the current Bush policy toward Iraq is indistinguishable from Bill Clinton's. After the U.N. inspectors found that they could no longer do their job effectively in 1998, the U.S. shifted its policy in Iraq toward regime change in Baghdad - exactly the policy now being pursued. The difference between Bush and Clinton, of course, lies in the sense of urgency and importance applied to the same policy. September 11 made the White House acutely aware of the ruthlessness of the new Islamist terror-masters: suddenly, the American homeland was also in play. The possibility of a chemical or biological 9/11 made Washington realize that its continued Iraq policy needed actual enforcement. It made Washington realize that regime change needed to mean what it said.

Are there deeper differences between Bush and Clinton on this? There is, of course, the matter of style. Clinton was a master of the European dialogue. He meant very few things he said but he said them very well. He was a great schmoozer. When he compared the Serbian genocide to the Jewish Holocaust, it sounded earnest but no-one, least of all the massacred Bosnians, actually believed he meant it. And he didn't. If he had meant it, he wouldn't have allowed a quarter of a million to be murdered in Europe, while he delegated American foreign policy to the morally feckless and militarily useless European Union. Ditto with Iraq and al Qaeda. A few missiles here and there; some sanctions that starved millions of Iraqis but kept Saddam in power; and a big rhetorical game kept the pretense of seriousness up. But there was no actual attempt to match words with actions. In this, the French were completely - preternaturally - comfortable. No wonder Clinton was popular.

Bush's style couldn't be more different. He's blunt, straightforward, folksy, direct. Although his formal speeches have been as eloquent as any president's in modern times, his informal discourse is of the kind to make a European wince. And his early distancing from many of Clinton's policies, his assertion of American sovereignty in critical matters, undoubtedly ruffled some Euro-lapels. In retrospect, he could have been more politic.

But the point is: the foreign policy of Bush is not so drastically different from Clinton. On Iraq, in particular, there isn't a smidgen of principled difference between this administration and the last one. In fact, Bush came into office far less interventionist than Clinton and far more modest than Gore. His campaign platform budgeted less for defense than Al Gore's did. And his instincts were more firmly multilateral. That, of course, changed a year and a half ago. 9/11 made him realize that American withdrawal from the world

Here's an intersting and relevant quote:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

I'm tired of this crap.

Don't you peace-loving hippies get it? This war IS in the defense of our home land! I'm sure that there are other interests involved somewhere. Nothing is THAT clear cut... especially in the modern world of global powers and espionage. But the bottom line is we have been attacked on our own home soil. This is a man that has threatened and attacked our country. He has supported and trained terrorist-type groups that have killed thousands all over the world... including 9/11. If we don't do something now to protect ourselves, then it CAN, and likely WILL, happen again. Don't any of you recall the drama and analyst's statements from last summer about the movie 'The Sum of All Fears'? They said that unfortunately, a similar incident could easily occur. I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather secure my freedom and safety by being proactive in a distant land than to live in fear and chaos in a reactive state of emergency in my own country.

I'll tell you what... Why don't all you folks that think we should just "sit back and take it" or "wait it out" without going to war get go get you a plane ticket over there to Iraq or Afghanistan and tell them the same thing. Then I want you to come back in one year and tell me what their answer is... if you survive to return at all and are not in prison. And on your way over there, why don't you stop by the memorial for the Twin Towers in New York. She what those folks have to say about all this. Oh right, you can't cause they're DEAD! Or why don't you just join those who would fight against us warmongering folks? Is the friend of my enemy my enemy too?

People WILL/HAVE died on both sides of this conflict before the actual war ever started. And you know what? Better them than us! Where is the question of right or wrong here?

I don't think there's been a "peace loving hippie" comment for at least the past few posts . I placed my post to quiet down criticism of the President (to give some of my more liberal counterparts food for thought) - especially the European criticism. By the way, Andrew Sullivan, the author of the article I posted is British.

Not sure which posts you meant, but I wanted to say about Starburstlvrs article, I really enjoyed her post on that, and found no 'hippyness' relevant in that article. In fact I agreed with most everything that said.


BTW IMO F'-Peter-Dumbass-Arnett-

EDIT Agreededed or whatever I put was not good American either.

You go Mike.

There is no point debating something thats already happening. Everyone had their chance to vote their representative and president into office. They make the decision on war/no war, not the average citizen. If you did not vote, you have no right to say anything. If you did, more power to you. But it's not going to affect anything. All the peace demonstrations in the world did, and will continue to, do nothing to stop it. It's not that I sit back and care nothing of the situation, but I'm not the one in charge of the military. Bush is. Wheather you voted for him or not, he is in charge and should be supported. As well as our troops.

Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't talking about my post. But on to Peter Arnett. I mean come on, son, I'm not even half as old as you, yet I have enough sense to keep my butt off Iraqi TV *in a time of war* spouting off my own opinions. Now, as a citizen, I can do that, but as a reporter, Mr. Arnett has a different resposibility. He is in the public eye. His duty - to report facts and not personal opinions. He would never had said what he did on American or British TV, not as a representative of National Geographic and MSNBC, basically a Coalition reporter.

Does he have a right to his opinions? Yes. Does he, as a reporter, have a right to go on the enemy's (after all that's what they are now isn't it?) military-run television station and say Anti-Coalition stuff, basically stuff that stirred up the Republican guard and gave those poor blokes hope that they may win? As a reporter? No. On the current regime's television station? Hell no.

At first, MSNBC supported his individual freedom, but when National Geographic fired Arnett, and the outcry grew, they fired him as well.

I'm sure he wasn't thinking clearly, if we was it's probably best to get the reporters with no sense whatsoever out of there asap.

And darn it if I didn't like Arnett too. What a shame.

I have nothing new to add since my post last night, but i did want to clear up some small confusion that apperantly i left...

I really enjoyed Starburstlvr's post. My impatience was not directed at her in any way. I WAS however, directed at anyone with a difference of opinion than mine. Well, ok, how about anyone who just doesn't get what this war is about. Who just can't find the decency to support our troops who are laying down their lives in distant lands to ensure YOUR/OUR freedom and security on our home soil!! To support our president who has had to deal with one of the largest disasters in recent history on our home ground (9/11) during his term of office. Could you have made a better decision? Something tells me those folks have never had REAL responsibility as a leader over other fellow humans, be it in a managerial sense or especially in a military position. If they had, then they could possibly begin to feel the heartache and the stress and the LOSS that was suffered on 9/11. Then maybe they could understand that responsibility and what Bush and his administration must have been going thru SINCE 9/11. The need for revenge. Then need for defense. The need to show the world that anyone who would commit another act such as 9/11 will not just suffer individually, but that THEIR home and the country that helped them will suffer that fate as well!

Again, could/would you have made a better set of decisions given the circumstances? I highly doubt it.

Again, my post is directed at those in our group or outside, famous celebrity or average joe, idiot news reporters and EX-allies of our country (France, Germany, Russia) who just don't get it. They don't get the reason for this war. They don't get the need to support our country and it's leaders and it's troops.


"Wipe them out, all of them." - Darth Sidious

"At last we shall have our revenge." - Darth Maul

I personally support this war - not for revenge. Revenge is exactly what the terrorists do and want us to do. Bringing them to justice or justice to them is different than revenge in my book.

I'm sure there's some connection somewhere down the line with Iraq and Al Qaeda, but until we have solid evidence, let's calm down for a second. We're in there to get rid on an evil man, who we all know has intentions not only to hurt us, but his neighbors who don't like him. I think 9/11 made us realize, as stated above in that article, that we need to actually deal with things instead of pushing them off - pushing away problems brought about 9/11.

As for the actors that don't support the way - I'm grateful for them. They keep the rest of us thinking instead of blindly following our leaders. We have the right to question so we should use it. However, to personally attack our leader I believe is uncalled for - especially in a time of war, when the troops that are defending you and trying to finish a mission in the name of your country are dying and some who see you on TV - then keep your mouth shut about the personal merits or pitfalls of the leader. With some actors however, I don't think they think outside of their own personal opinion and try to see another point of view. I believe they are just as bad as those who blindly follow.

Wow, this has become absolutely ridiculous.

Go over to Iraq and Afganistan and tell them that? What kind of silly B.S. is that? What's the logic there?

And since when did we need to actually go to WAR over this? One group got us and we declare war on everyone who may or may not have given them little-to-major support?

Does this mean we declare war on ourselves for supplying al Queda in the first place? Hell, we've supported terrorism more than Saddam EVER has.

What gets my goat is this "Single perspective" view that so many people have about this. No one, not even for a second, wants to believe that maybe, just maybe, US foreign policy is the reason why there are so many people pissed off enough to try to kill us.

Maybe, maybe not. But not a one of us has stopped to consider it.

So far the only truely logical argument here has been, "It's started, so quit yer bitchin."

But there is even flaw in that logic. Remember Vietnam? The backlash from that kept us out of war until Granada.

And if this backlash keeps us from going into a pointless war again for the next 20 years...Good.

Come one people, we are swatting a fly with a hand granade. Overkill much? There is no need for WAR, simple military actions (covert ops, maybe) would suffice.

And to the agrument about voting...Umm, Bush didn't "WIN" he was appointed. Anyone remember what the Supreme Court had to do to resolve the vote? So how did the vote play into this again?

And I hate to break up your ideas that this war will solve the terrorist problem in the world. It won't. In fact, war usually will create future generations of terrorists.

Explain to me agian how war and destruction will make a people want to embrace us?

Last time I checked, help and compassion usually wins the day on that one.

As far as Starburstlvr post goes....Since when was this a competition between presidents? Hey, it really doesn't matter if Bush is better than Clinton or worse than Lincoln or as good as Adams. It's not a contest.

If Bush does something stupid then it's stupid regardless of how insepid Clinton was. Once again, this just reeks of Republican vs. Democrats. Fleh to the silly 2 party system!

And who is saying, "Bush is bad! Troops are bad!" No one, last time I checked. In fact I think it goes more like this...."Bush dumb and selfish...Troops still good!"

No one is faulting the troops, they are just doing their job. It's the people pulling the strings that are bad, not the guys at the end of the strings.

BTW, I like the idea that we are using Sith Lord quotes to justify this. Seems appropriate if you ask me.

BTW, this is not coming from a tree-loving hippie. I actually like and support the idea of war, when used properly. And this is neither the time nor the place for WAR.

"The need for revenge. Then need for defense." That is the best oxymoronic statement I've heard in a while.

* Don't look now...PEACE LOVIN' HIPPIES coming out of the woods *

J/K everyone! A healthy debate is a good thing (Even if you peace lovin' hippies
are wrong )

I hope this will be my last post on this issue.

First of all, I have no love for George Bush (I didn't vote for him or gore) but this
argument that he is an idiot is just wrong. Hell, he graduated Yale University (1968)
Graduated from Harvard Business School (1975). So I don't think he is stupid.

The real problem people have with this war is that they don't like ole Georgie. They
think he is simple because of his speeches are not that well spoken and he speaks in
a southern 'Good Ole Boy' accent. They also think this is just a revenge war for 'Daddy'

Well that is B/S!

I didn't like em at first...but man did he do a good job swallowing the crap that
was put on his plate.

I tend to think on this whole thing as NOT war...but a terrorist raid. If you think
there were no Al Queda in IRAQ, well, you are fooling yourself. I don't know if you
are paying attention, but when we grab these folks and start torturin...err interrogating
them they start singing and we bust up a cell or two. The world is alot different
now than back during the Vietnam (Its this whole other country ) and Korean
wars...what makes it different????? 9 1 1 .

We have to hunt down these animals and get them in the rat holes they hide
in. No matter where they are. We CANNOT sit idley (sp) by and stick flowers in
gun barrels anymore. The world is a different place now!

Saddam IS A TERRORIST (With an army unfortunately) ... So go get em Georgie and
get our boys home soon!

And Threep I think the relevance of Starburstlvr's post is that this problem
wasn't just on ole Georgie's plate. It was another 'Chicken Bone' thrown on his plate
to choke down from Clinton's days.

In all actuality, Clinton probobaly should have handled this!

Kev

To be honest, I don't really think Georgie is stupid. "Stupid" is more of an all-enclusive term for, "man who has only big business, oil companies, and his own bottom line in the fore front of his decision making. American well-being is second to that."

Just because he's educated doesn't mean he makes decisions with best interests in mind. But it does in fact mean that he can be smart enough to dupe us.

Aside from the Good Ol Boy accent and the numerous bothches on pronunciation, let's try to remember Bush first year in office...Or shall I say in Camp David.

Not until 9/11 did anyone think Bush was doing anything in the interest of the American People (mainly because he wasn't). So it takes a catastrophy to wake him up? And what does he do, he takes immediate and very destructive actions to make him look like he's actually doing something in office other than screwing over the middle class and the poor.

Look, 9/11 happened because they finally outsmarted us. This will happen from time to time. It sucks, but it's unavoidable. For all the security measures that we can ever come up with, there will always be some guy, some organization, that will be able to best it.

I mean, are we really so arrogant to think that 9/11 was the ONLY terrorist act to be attempted on us? For all we know there are people every second of every day trying to kill us off. But we get most of them (thank you CIA for that). We are good at what we do, but the law of probability states that eventually they will get us.

So why are we all freaking out? Yes I understand that thousands of Americans died. Yes, it is absolutely horrible. And yes, action should be taken. But against who? Well, Al Queda did it, we know that. So, we went after them....Makes sense right? Sure! Justice served hot and steaming, baby! We didn't declare WAR on Afganistan did we? Nope, just Al Queda.

We couldn't even get one simple organization. Mainly because it's damn near impossible to destroy a worldwide organization. We could kill the leaders off, but the organization, in and of itself, will stay intact. They may not be as effective anymore (or: could get more effective), but it will prevail.

Ok, so we went after something that we knew was damn near impossible to destroy. It might have looked better to ferret out the guys responsible, and try them like we would a war criminal, or something to that effect. But I guess that's not enough blood to compensate for thousands of American lives.

We're all soo pissed about 9/11 that we think we are just and right to go after an entire country whose leader may have given supplimental support to, possibly indirectly, to an organization that was keeping their plans about 9/11 secret. How many Arab leaders and countries actually knew that Al Queda was going to blow up the Towers? I would think that they wouldn't say anything to the other Arab Countries. And if my memory serves me correctly, Al Queda weren't always the bad guys. There was a time when Al Queda was celebrated, even by some in America, for pushing out Russia. They were the good guys there for a while, so of course people helped them out, we even did it.

So, now why are we getting selective about who helped them? Why now? And why just Iraq? Shouldn't we, by that same logic, also declare War on Afganistan for harboring them for so long? Or how about Iran? Palestine? Isreal? While we're at it, let's just go after the entire Arab Existance!

And all I'm saying with the comparisons to Vietnam is that our country is not going to stand by and just "let" our leaders send our troops off to stupid wars.

As a society, we're getting a bit tired of it. The demonstartions over the last 40 years show that.

I don't want "flowers in barrels" that IS silly. But you're right, it's a different world now, and the protesting has changed right along with it. But it is still protest. Never forget that.

And we've never sat idley by. What do you think economic sanctions and the like are? That is us taking a stand against other countries. Just because we

Oh, and Kev, you might want to stay away from choking
analogies when talking about Bush.
-----------------------------------------


You know its funny as I read this post through and see the dividing line on
who likes the President and who doesn't.

But the really funny thing is that there is NO politician who isn't crooked in some
way or another, got a personal agenda, etc..blah blah blah! They all are a bunch
that needs to end up in the bottom of the ocean with all them lawyers as sharkbait.

On another note: I was thumbing around the net and saw that picture of dubya when
they whispered in his ear about 9/11...Now that is the look of.....OH SHeeT...can't
imagine what his first thought was!

Kevito

Cleaning the stain on the rug wasn't even attempted by Clinton - he just put an end table over the stain. "Oh look I'm doing something by throwing one bomb on this one building in this massive country!" Give me a freaking break.

You know, I'm one of those people who sits on the fence on many issues - or will hop to one side with certain "but"s and "ifs". And then the leaders of France, Russia, and Germany know that Saddam is a person that needs to be gotten rid of - I don't think anyone argues with that. However, France and other countries are blinded by the money they make off Saddam being in power. But when the walls come tumbling down so to speak, who will be the first one knocking at the door wanting to do something - France. Which from a historical point of view will not be surprising in the least.

As far as our foreign policy angering other countries - yes it has. I know that, many others know that. However, that is no excuse for states supporting terrorist acts against innocent civilians. I don't care how pissed you are at a country, you don't hijack a plane with its civilians and run it into two massive buildings. So, don't give me this "we brought it on ourselves" bs.

Also, it isn't Bush's policy that brought 9/11 on us - a policy shared by many past Presidents. It's been made evident that the plan was began when Clinton was in office. Why aren't people pissed off at him for his policies and what he did or did not do to prevent this while in office?

Now, this doesn't mean that Bush should not hold his responsibility. Terrorism was something we kind of had an eye on, but there was this American mindset, shared by many, that they (meaning other countries more so then terrorists) wouldn't even try to attack us on home soil. So, when you're trying to battle a recession on the horizon it was easy back then to push other things aside just as other Presidents have done in the past.

Terrorist attacks were always a threat, and forever will be a threat. As long as you have people with extremist points of view - you will have terror. We could say that we love Saddam or Bin Laden and we'd still have people trying to kill us. It's impossible to make everyone in this world not angry with us. No matter our foreign policy someone out there is going to be pissed off.

As a side note, I'm a registered independent voter so I can beat up on Republicans and Democrats just the same - which I like Especially in times such as these - it allows me to see and understand where other people are coming from.

Well, this will be my last post on this topic as i've said about all I feel I need to.

Yes, I have considered our foriegn policy. And it does suck and we need to stay out of other countries unless they are a direct threat to us.

I voted for Clinton, and then Bush. So while I may not be an independant voter, I too can see both sides of the fence and am not just PRO-Republican or PRO-Democrat. I also share that sentiment that all politicians are crooks and should be shot on sight. (damn the laws against murder!) But that is what makes them unique and why we don't have a Monarchy.

As for Iraq, 9/11 is all the justification that I need, but there are plenty of other reasons that I believe we should remove that dick-tator from office over there. It's not just 9/11, but the on-going harboring of terrorists that he promotes. Its the geonocide of his own people. Its the mistrust and lies he creates in regards to weapons of mass destruction. Its the fact that he has already tried to spread his fascism (like Hitler) upon other countries and we had to fight him back then. Maybe we should or should not have fought that war. I'm not debating it now, because I am too uneducated on exactly what lead up to that war. I was only 17 and too busy getting into trouble at high school at the time. But I do know that he should be removed from office today... by any means necessary.

No, we did not wage war on Afghanistan as a whole. But maybe we should have. Maybe every one of those terrorists would stay the hell away from us if they truely feared us, feared the repercussions of 'awaking the sleeping giant'. If the whole Arab sector of the world is behind Al Queda, then fine. Wage war on them all till we flush them out. Two words: Hiro shima. I know it won't stop them all, but it would sure as hell make anyone think twice before speaking out and/or attacking us again. And screw North Korea. We need to just "accidentally" drop a few there too. And then stop by France and take out the Eiffel Tower on the way back home. But I digress.

Toward the end there, maybe I was going a bit far, but I was serious about dealing with anyone and every that would threaten us quickly and decisively. To the point where we can keep to ourselves in this world and no one else wants to F' with us. That means staying out of other countries unless they pose a (real) threat to us. So the cheese-eating Frenchy bastards don't wanna be our friends anymore. Fine. Then we leave them the hell alone. And the next time Germany decides to invade (they are over-due now) and they call on us to help, we can just say "What? Can't hear you. I must have the TV up too loud with the Superbowl on. Call me later."

Oh, that reminds me.... THANK GOD FOR TONY BLAIR!


Now, did I ever tell you that I hate people (all of them ) and my personal life-goals are global geonocide? It's not a race thing, or a class thing, or a sex thing. It has nothing to do with age, size, or color. Why be picky? Let's just get rid of the whole damned human race! Good thing I'm not in office, eh??

Well, I'm off to watch the new "The Day the Earth Stood Still" DVD. Have fun debating.

Chocolate - I think that would be an interesting platform and campaign slogan - "Vote for me and DIE!" lol. Reminds me of the movie "Head of State" - one of the canidates keeps saying "God bless America and no place else.

Anyway, the French government is definitely on my list - right alongside Joel Schumacher for ruining the Batman movie series. By the way, I'm going to preview his new film "Phone Booth" tomorrow and I've heard good things about it - but I feel, just on principle, that I cannot say - "Oh what a great film!" The nicest thing I could say would be "That was a good film. Would've been better if that Schumacher hadn't directed it."

Are they're directors or actors that any of you detest or to more accurately describe my feelings towards Schumacher - loathe?

Just to set some things straight, Vietnam lasted so long because it was a war fought by politicians that never gave the troops the elbow room necessary to clean out the enemy. The troops were effectively blindfolded and had their hands tied behind their backs---what other outcome could there be? The same thing happened in Somalia (Black Hawk Down, anyone?), another war fought by politicians trying to win a few more percentage points.

And the notion that only more violence comes out of war is just plain stupid. "Violence only leads to more violence", right? WRONG! Uncontrolled, unfocused violence does lead to more violence, yes. Overwhelming and decisive violence does NOT lead to more violence BECAUSE ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD RESPOND IN KIND ARE DEAD! It is a harsh, but simple concept.

It comes down to a simple point--there are people, organizations and governments in this world that are a threat or potential threat to America and our way of life. Those threats should be eliminated. If diplomacy fails to eliminate such a threat, then by direct and overwhelming force.

Obviously, some people don't understand and appreciate their own country, how unique and wonderful it is, and that such wonder has a price--constant vigilance.

And if people hate this country so much that they're willing to be human shields for the enemy, spit on soldiers, and the like---they should grow a pair and do what Jack said, "Pick up a weapon and stand opposed."

Now, do people have a right to disagree with decisions our leaders make? Yes, of course they do. But in my opinion, there is a line between free speech and treason, which a lot of people seem to be edging towards these days.

Well I would consider being a human shield for the enemy treason. But saying that I respect my leaders and love my country, yet disagree with what my leaders are doing is not treacherous nor is it unpatriotic. You're just saying, "Hey, I don't like that."

And the people who disagree need to offer alternative solutions. I hate when people just complain and complain, yet never offer any other way of doing things *cough-Michael Moore-cough*. Whether you're for or opposed to something, I need clear and logical reasons why. There are many people on either side of this issue who start barking a lot of emotionally driven statements. Which is fine, but can you think clearly for a second and try to logically address the issue. That last ramble was to no one on this board just society as a whole right now - at least the part of society that the statement applies to.

Yes, well, global geonocide has been a goal of mine long before this war ever even creeped up on the radar. I think it took form while working at AT&T in the customer service department. Thats when I began to realize that some people just needed to die. No trial. No jury. And no quiet death by lethal injection. I want them to suffer.

But then I realized that I was sure not qualified to choose who lives and who dies. So I decided that in the interests of fairness and equality, everyone should die.

Sorry.

When I mention treason, I mean the people that are becoming a violent disturbance, and more importantly, I don't want some nutbag over here saying and doing things that will take one ounce of morale from any soldier in Iraq right now that might cause them to have a moment of doubt in a war situation.

Well...what I am hearing out of France freaking infuriates me!

They are desecrating graves and cemeteries with stuff such as:

"Saddam will win and he will make you bleed,"
"Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil,"

OMG...their people are GARBAGE and nothing else. I cannot believe
that they would do that.

Un-freaking-believable!

Kev