The day the terrorists won....

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

I agree with all of you that the largest terrorist attack since 9-11, definitly changed the face of the elections. It would have been a close vote, I am guessing had this attack not occured.

But Facts liberals are hardly the cause of all the world's problems. It has to do with conflicting idealogies (mostly religion as of late). In addition to oppressive leaders doing what is best for themselves and their friends, rather than what is best for there people. And nutjobs like Kim of North Korea, who is spending all of his damn money on nukes, when his country is starving to death.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Go ahead and interpret it that way 1stdeadeye. Typical condescending paranoia.

Ummmmm maybe it could be that they don't think Iraq and the war on terror are related? Maybe they feel that analyzing who exactly is responsible and going after THEM rather then a created war might be better.....]

Its not that.

You know how one would know that?

The day before the attack the socialists had exactly zero chance of winning the election. Once the bombs went off and the old tapes were played where Al Queda said they would start attacking countries allied with the US the voters realized they would have to make a choice between standing up to evil or appeasing it.

They decided to appease. It wasn't as much about the Iraq war as it was about giving in to the demands of a bully.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Its not that.

You know how one would know that?

The day before the attack the socialists had exactly zero chance of winning the election. Once the bombs went off and the old tapes were played where Al Queda said they would start attacking countries allied with the US the voters realized they would have to make a choice between standing up to evil or appeasing it.

They decided to appease. It wasn't as much about the Iraq war as it was about giving in to the demands of a bully.

In a way like the Ghost of Munich

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
It's amusing really. People who can't grasp the politics in their own country in terms other than Black/White or US vs THEM think they have a complete understanding of politics in another country.

Yeah, I'd like to say I have a real good idea politically what goes on not just here in the states, but in most of the world. Its really one of my big things that I enjoy and like to know a lot about.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but that doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of what's happening.

The Spanish have been dealing with murderous terrorists (the ETA) for far longer than the US. The last government was VERY popular because of its stand against the ETA. However they were suffering for their participation in the Iraq war. That and MANY other issues that face incumbants was working against them. The quick move to blame ETA and try to make political fuel out of the bombing certainly didn't help their cause for re-election.

And there was significant enough evidence to point in the direction of the ETA, and it hasn't been conclusively proven either way yet (although its looking more and more like Al Queda now).

And the reason people were so quick to get angry about the ETA claim is because the socialists have been very cozy with the ETA so blaming them (even if it was true) looks like a base political move.

The British government may suffer a similar backlash. As the justification used for war has been disproven, Blair has come under heavy political fire. The British know a thing o two about fighting terrorism too (IRA). Americans should know them well since most of the IRA's funding is/was from the US.

It has NOT been disproven. It looks like part of it may have been in error, but the fact remains that WMD programs were uncovered and it is very possible that the WMD are still out there (although its not a guarantee).

And the British completely caved to the IRA. COMPLETELY. (which is why they control such a sizeable portion of the area now)

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
And of course a news story is going to give you a balanced view of voter intentions.

No, but paying very close attetion to a variety of sources and reliable polling data points the right direction.

But, even if the War in Iraq is the ONLY defining issue. You're ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence that shoots down ALL the justification used leading up to the war.

Totally wrong.

Some of the evidence is being called into question as it relates to accuracy and nothing has been concluded as of yet.

It is possible there were no WMD's (although last year I wouldn't have believed it). BUT, it is verifiable fact that there were programs and we have that evidence in hand now.

The new president in Spain has even made a rather balanced statement about the whole affair. He won't pull the troops out if the UN becomes more involved.

That's not a balanced statement. That's just saying "we know this will never happen, but if it does we'll help out ::nudge nudge wink wink::"


The sad thing is that if 1/100 th of the money being spent in Iraq and Afganistan were spent combatting hunger, providing unbiased education, and providing health care, most of the terrorists wouldn't be able to recruit suicide bombers.

You mean $10 million?

We did spend that much, more in fact.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Which is taught to them by hate-mogers in the only free residential schools that parents can put their kids in.

That's not an entirely accurate statement.

That's being taught in the schools because the state controls the schools (all of them) and that's what they want the kids to learn. If they were rich it wouldn't matter.

Hate which is bred, from the deplorable conditions that they are toiling and starving in, conditions that force parents to give up their children or watch them starve.

We give them money to get out of those conditions. The corrupt and evil regimes steal that money and oppress their people.

Hardly our doing.

The willingness to commit suicide bred by the desparation and pointlessness of a life that they don't see improving.

They commit suicide because the local cleric that they trust tells them they'll go to heaven if they do it.

Those that instigate the hatred and violence MUST be stopped and punished. But until the ROOT causes are delt with, they'll kill us because we kill them and the cycle will continue.

True and False.

True that the root causes must be dealt with. Those root causes are not the poverty and living conditions though. The root causes are the corrupt regimes that create those conditions.

And False that the cycle will always continue. Because, as Bush has demonstrated, you can kill enough of them to effectively stop the violence. BUT, you must remain vigilant and keep killing them.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
In part, true. But the warlords in Afganistan are now more powerful thanks to the fact that we used them to combat the Taliban.

The reasonable ones that can be trusted with authority now have it. The brutal thugs have been by and large put down.

The current Pakistani leadership is supported regardless of their background.

They're very handy right now, and Musaraff is a good leader and is on our side. If he falls from power look for our relationship to become strained.

Aristide in Haiti and the Duvaliers before were all helped regardless of how they treated their populations.

You can thank the democrats for that, and Bush fixed it.

Saddam was a great ally of the US and wasn't repremanded as he used US supplies and equipment to gas the Kurds.

more then 20 years ago he was the lesser evil between Iraq and Iran. He then got out of control.

And he was reprimanded for the Kurds. Problem was at the time we needed him to keep Iran in check.

True and lasting peace happens when people have something to look forward to. For that you have re-instill hope in the population.

Yeah, or you could just kill all the bad people.

Otherwise, whether it's Afganis, Iraqis, Haitians, Palestinians, or Russians. If all they see is the suffering and horror brought about on them for their supposed good, they understandably choose what they see as the lessser of two evils. Better the old corrupt system where you knew that at least if you stood in line for a day you'd get a loaf of bread than the post-war/revolution anarchy where you risk starving to death.

What are you babbling about. All the groups you've just mentioned (except the Palestinians who are a special exception) have welcomed democracy and peace and are striving towards it now. None of them want to go back to being prisoners of tyrants.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
I agree with all of you that the largest terrorist attack since 9-11, definitly changed the face of the elections. It would have been a close vote, I am guessing had this attack not occured.

Polling indicates it would not have been remotely close.

But Facts liberals are hardly the cause of all the world's problems. It has to do with conflicting idealogies (mostly religion as of late). In addition to oppressive leaders doing what is best for themselves and their friends, rather than what is best for there people. And nutjobs like Kim of North Korea, who is spending all of his damn money on nukes, when his country is starving to death.

Liberals don't cause those problems.

They do however allow the problems to fester and get worse with their policy of appeasement. You really need to SOLVE those problems (meaning kill the trouble makers), and liberals don't do that.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
I agree with all of you that the largest terrorist attack since 9-11, definitly changed the face of the elections. It would have been a close vote, I am guessing had this attack not occured.

Polling indicates it would not have been remotely close.

But Facts liberals are hardly the cause of all the world's problems. It has to do with conflicting idealogies (mostly religion as of late). In addition to oppressive leaders doing what is best for themselves and their friends, rather than what is best for there people. And nutjobs like Kim of North Korea, who is spending all of his damn money on nukes, when his country is starving to death.

Liberals don't cause those problems.

They do however allow the problems to fester and get worse with their policy of appeasement. You really need to SOLVE those problems (meaning kill the trouble makers), and liberals don't do that.

on the election I was not sure, thanks for clearing that up.

But on your other point, where do we draw the line from between ruling with an iron fist, and with a loving hand.

Because despite what alot of people want, we can't just kill everyone that disagrees or threatens us. And I am certain that you know that Newt.

And diplomacy can only go so far. It is hard enough convincing any of you conservatives to even consider a liberal idea. And I can only imagine how hard it would be to deal when one group has an extreme hatred for the other, and share ideals which are polar opposites.

You truly need someone who is will use force when necassary, but will attempt to exhaust all other potential ways first.

Its hard posting while a delicious bowl of chicken and dumplings is sitting right infront of you.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
[They do however allow the problems to fester and get worse with their policy of appeasement.

Well, I suppose it's a small step that you don't blame "liberals" for all ills. But resorting to simplistic ideology and labeling is still pathetic. As you alluded to yourself, strict adherance to dagma is what causes many of these problems in the first place.

While appeasement is wrong so too is oppression and totalitarianism. Israel certainly hasn't appeased the Palestinians, yet their problems aren't about to disappear.

It's also childish and simplistic to think that you can't be hard on terrorists and criminals while at the same time working towards social justice.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

While appeasement is wrong so too is oppression and totalitarianism. Israel certainly hasn't appeased the Palestinians, yet their problems aren't about to disappear.

It's also childish and simplistic to think that you can't be hard on terrorists and criminals while at the same time working towards social justice.

Totally agree with this statement. There is a BALANCE people. Once we start dealing with EVERYTHING as a military problem can't you see that everything BECOMES a military problem? You need to have a multifaceted approach. Drain the swamp to get rid of mosquitos while using poisoning the little buggers in the near term.

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Totally agree with this statement. There is a BALANCE people. Once we start dealing with EVERYTHING as a military problem can't you see that everything BECOMES a military problem? You need to have a multifaceted approach. Drain the swamp to get rid of mosquitos while using poisoning the little buggers in the near term.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by shartley

Well, done Shartley.

Now that you've laid down your analysis of thousands of issues over 20 years of history and firmly defined that the rest of the world is wrong, guesss there's little else to debate.

So, the ilk that want military action don't need to look for balance because they've stereotyped their opponents as unbalanced. Very logical reasoning.

It's a little like lumping any and all statements against government policy as being un-American. With us or against us, no room for diversity or discussion.

Is there any doubt as to why there are so many that view armed conflict as the only solution?

[shartley]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Well, done Shartley.

Now that you've laid down your analysis of thousands of issues over 20 years of history and firmly defined that the rest of the world is wrong, guesss there's little else to debate.

So, the ilk that want military action don't need to look for balance because they've stereotyped their opponents as unbalanced. Very logical reasoning.

It's a little like lumping any and all statements against government policy as being un-American. With us or against us, no room for diversity or discussion.

Is there any doubt as to why there are so many that view armed conflict as the only solution?

[shartley]