Who's Really in Denial? It's not President Bush

[Iriemon]

I think that they bicker like 8th grade girls. :lol:

The problem is also that our enemies are electable in their countries. An uneducated constituency is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than a dictator. I do not mean that these people are stupid. I mean that the version of truth that they get is different than the one we get, or reality for that matter.

Yeah, they probably are getting a different version of the truth. They are probably being told that the US invaded Iraq supposedly because Iraq had all these hundreds of tons of chemical weapons and long range missles and nuke programs and terrorist training camps and WMDs that weren't really there, that the US said it was invading for limited purposes when it plans to occupy indefinitely, that the US tortures Muslims, and that secret US squads snatch people away and lock them in secret jails for years without telling anyone or charging them or giving them a hearing to see if they are guilty or innocent.

Outrageous nonsense like that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Which is not such a good thing. Perhaps if a 9/11 occurred on their watch they might have done something as well. Perhaps in fifty years the Middle East will have a new face upon it, because of an interdiction called "Iraqi Freedom" occurred. There is no sense in complaining about the inevitable snags along the way that would be there regardless.
.......

You make it sound as though there are no alternative plans out there. Any administration in response to 9/11 would have invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and then attempted to Democratize the nation.

That in and of itself, is doing something. However, by not going into Iraq, we would have still retained the support of virtually the entire world, including the Muslim world.

On top of that, we could have taken a more even handed approach toward Israel, done everything we could to help democracy in Lebanon succeed and thus help keep Hesbolah from gaining power there, and taken and carrot and stick approach with Iran.

Contrary to the assertions by many Neo-Conservatives, the war on terror will not be won by simply attempting to forcibly engineer Democracy in the Middle East. Instead, its a war of ideals. The fact is, in many ways, Free Trade and Globalization is the key to peace.

I think that many times, some people seem to measure doing something by military means alone. For example, we could invade Saudi Arabia, but does anyone honestly think that would be a good idea in the long run? Western culture and economics is largely what won the Cold War. It is also largely what has opened up China's economy, and is slowly leading China toward democracy. You can't just impose Democracy at the end of a rifle, you have to change hearts and minds first.

 

[MSgt]

I think that they bicker like 8th grade girls. :lol:

The problem is also that our enemies are electable in their countries. An uneducated constituency is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than a dictator. I do not mean that these people are stupid. I mean that the version of truth that they get is different than the one we get, or reality for that matter.

Exactly. And no amount of our "good example" is going to improve on their environments. We have to accept that we have come to a point in our history where we have to be more proactive and more drastic in our measures with these civilizations where before we showed complete disregard and even turned our backs for that evil word - "stability."

Our civilization's problem is that we are too opinionated on what is and is not drastic and what degree of pro-activeness we are to take. Of course, in the middle of all of this opinion is the self-centered politician drawing a pay check, the media outlets that draw paychecks, and the average American who can't begin to understand Islam without the opinions of self-centered commentators who are just drawing paychecks (most of whom haven't stepped foot in the Middle East or done any real study).

Example: How many commentators choose to speak about a flushed Koran or dead civilians and disregard any commentation on the civilization or culture(s) of the Middle East? Not many.

 

[MSgt]

You make it sound as though there are no alternative plans out there. Any administration in response to 9/11 would have invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and then attempted to Democratize the nation.

That in and of itself, is doing something. However, by not going into Iraq, we would have still retained the support of virtually the entire world, including the Muslim world.

On top of that, we could have taken a more even handed approach toward Israel, done everything we could to help democracy in Lebanon succeed and thus help keep Hesbolah from gaining power there, and taken and carrot and stick approach with Iran.

Contrary to the assertions by many Neo-Conservatives, the war on terror will not be won by simply attempting to forcibly engineer Democracy in the Middle East. Instead, its a war of ideals. The fact is, in many ways, Free Trade and Globalization is the key to peace.

I think that many times, some people seem to measure doing something by military means alone. For example, we could invade Saudi Arabia, but does anyone honestly think that would be a good idea in the long run? Western culture and economics is largely what won the Cold War. It is also largely what has opened up China's economy, and is slowly leading China toward democracy. You can't just impose Democracy at the end of a rifle, you have to change hearts and minds first.

First...it's not so much that there is no alternative plans out there. It happens to be the only plan anyone cared to impliment where before we were willing to allow the painstaking pace of the Radical Middle East to determine our degree of security for the sake of an imagined false peace. There has been no other plan introduced except for a very vague spewing of "right and wrong" and "moral and immoral." There's been a whole lot of "ifs" and "maybes" and "might haves."

Second...the rest of the world is useless. Were they not, we wouldn't have to lead the charge everywhere they go. You can only expect their help when it directly involves them or they have to keep up appearances. We've seen this in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. We have seen this by the absence of action throughout Africa.

Third...This is a war of ideals. Fundamental religious ideals that are set in concrete and no amount of free trade is going to loosen them. Those that are determined to hate and blame will do so. Those that are truley guilty of the failures and oppression of the Middle East will never allow such "globalization" into their societies. They must be removed. "Globalization" means acceptance of the western influence and those civilizations who use us as their scapegoat will never allow such evil (and freedom) upon their people.

Fourth...The Lebanese government chose to support Hezbollah and they allowed them to fester and parade their "glory" in front of their impressionable youth. They have done this for two reasons: 1) They support the hatred towards Israelis and 2) they fear the uprising of the Radical Middle East if they even considered to do anything about Hezbollah.

Fifth...No one is imposing democracy at the end of a rifle. Saddam was toppled. The majority of the Iraqi population chose to vote for their next governance. And the elected governance will ultimately be responsible for pushing forward despite the certain elements determination to reverse the clock.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

First...it's not so much that there is no alternative plans out there. It happens to be the only plan anyone cared to impliment where before we were willing to allow the painstaking pace of the Radical Middle East to determine our degree of security for the sake of an imagined false peace. There has been no other plan introduced except for a very vague spewing of "right and wrong" and "moral and immoral." There's been a whole lot of "ifs" and "maybes" and "might haves."

Second...the rest of the world is useless. Were they not, we wouldn't have to lead the charge everywhere they go. You can only expect their help when it directly involves them or they have to keep up appearances. We've seen this in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. We have seen this by the absence of action throughout Africa…….

A lot of people do not like it, but the notion of independent fully sovereign nations is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Nationalism is quickly becoming an antiquated concept. The days of Kings and Queens are largely over. The days of totalitarian dictatorships are quickly coming to an end. Even nations action solely in there own interests are ending. Religious fundamentalism, while fighting hard is dieing. Traditionalists are loosing every cultural war. Borders are quickly becoming non-existent.

This is the future, this is Globalism. We cannot exist in a vacuum. We need other nations as much as they need us. Our entire way of life is predicated on interdependence. The rest of the world is not useless. Poverty, totalitarianism, and the African Aids epidemic will not be conquered by the armies, but rather largely by the actions and goodwill of billionaire philanthropists. While incentives through various government caps and regulations might be the seed to changing from a carbon based to a sustainable world economy, it will be the innovation largely funded and implemented by huge multinational corporations that will actually make the difference. Capitalism and the Free Markets are the new kings, and they know no borders. Fundamentalism is destined to lose against science. The whole world is changing, and in each passing year, that change only accelerates. The way to win the war against radical Islam is to do everything we can to open up the Muslim World to those changes. In the end, that is what the terrorists are fighting, and that is what they cannot win against.

However, this cannot be imposed by force, but rather, individuals must simply have an incentive to embrace the modern world. You claim that we are not imposing Democracy in Iraq. That is absurd claim. Do you honestly think we would have allowed the Iraqis to choose communism? What if the Iraqis said they wanted Saddam back, would we have put him back in power? Of course not. The problem with imposing Democracy in a multiethnic society without first letting Globalism slowly do its work, is that those who are in the minority will invariably take up arms against what they perceive is the tyranny of the majority. Thus, a situation arises in Iraq where the vast majority of the insurgency is completely home grown.

Globalism is not about accepting western influence either. The west has been loosing power and influence for a century now. That is not going to change. If anything, this century will probably herald in the rise of the east.

At this point, our best bet would be to completely abandon the idea of a unified Iraq, and divide the nation into a loose confederacy three separate states, with the oil revenues divided between them. However, the likelihood of even that being successful is pretty slim.

 

[Mr. D]

Aww poor baby can't counter Mr. Kristol's points so he must resort to childish name calling take your ball and go home baby that's a good lad.

Mr. Kristol's points have been countered in words and by reality. They are just an attempt to put a good face on his failed NeoCon policy. His points make sense as long as you don't look at reality. "Misson accomplished!"

As to my hysterical concerns about the growing NeoCon fascism (name calling), I wish my friend was around so you could explain to him why his father died in a Japanese concentration camp in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I guess that was the imagination of hysterical Japanese American child looking through a concentration camp fence. But then I suppose you would have supported that too as long as it wasn't happening to you. The Germans watched as people where taken to their camps too! My friend lost his father, his father's business and his father's home. Don't tell me about hysterics! It happened and with so many militarist sheep in this country it can happen again!

It's possible that some of us can see the warnings coming of "possible" loss of actual freedoms when our King is allowed to interpret the Geneva Convention like a judge and the Bill of Rights is limited by the Patriot Act. Do you expect fascism to come with flashing lights and a warning sign? Do you think the people of Germany expected Hitler to go as far as he did when they cheered him as you cheer King Bush. As so many of our elected legislators have said, we are willing to give Bush the powers he needs to fight terrorism, but he wants them with no oversight like a dictator. How can you not see that he is doing the same things the monster dictators of South American countries have done with their secret prisons of torture in rendition programs in other countries. His own party is becoming afraid of him and his NeoCon masters while you wave the flag like a good sheep with blinders on! These dictatorial preemptive wars and the eroding of our constitutional freedoms are all serving the plan of Osama Bin Ladin and his kind. Bush's own government reports even state that we have created more terrorism and are less safe due to his Kowboy King's arrogant NeoCon actions. First rule when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! This isn't a football game. You don't have to back your side no matter how poorly they play! That's called being an blind faith ideologue! I'm not a Democrat or in support of a candidate. I'm just a person who believes we don't have to give up our Bill of Rights or torture people to fight terrorists! In fact we can't win that way because it encourages terrorism by validating their belief that we are evil!

 

[MSgt]

Well written.

A lot of people do not like it, but the notion of independent fully sovereign nations is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Nationalism is quickly becoming an antiquated concept. The days of Kings and Queens are largely over. The days of totalitarian dictatorships are quickly coming to an end. Even nations action solely in there own interests are ending. Religious fundamentalism, while fighting hard is dieing. Traditionalists are loosing every cultural war. Borders are quickly becoming non-existent.

Very, very true. The world is very much trying to cast off the old orders and corruptions. Globalization is indeed a factor. Which is why the cultures are competing and those that are threatened by ours will cling to anchient myths and failed traditions and lash out. We all heard from our "allies" and even our own Americans how wrong it was to invade Saddam's "soveriegn" country. Well, this hystorical sham that honors tyranny behind borders no matter how ruthless was shattered. We showed all those dicators and aggressors out there that we will no longer wait to be attacked in any form by these types of people.

This is the future, this is Globalism. We cannot exist in a vacuum. We need other nations as much as they need us. Our entire way of life is predicated on interdependence. The rest of the world is not useless. Poverty, totalitarianism, and the African Aids epidemic will not be conquered by the armies, but rather largely by the actions and goodwill of billionaire philanthropists. While incentives through various government caps and regulations might be the seed to changing from a carbon based to a sustainable world economy, it will be the innovation largely funded and implemented by huge multinational corporations that will actually make the difference. Capitalism and the Free Markets are the new kings, and they know no borders. Fundamentalism is destined to lose against science. The whole world is changing, and in each passing year, that change only accelerates. The way to win the war against radical Islam is to do everything we can to open up the Muslim World to those changes. In the end, that is what the terrorists are fighting, and that is what they cannot win against.

Everything we can involves killing terrorists, removing the dicators, religious tyrants, and oppressive governments.

The rest of the world is very useless. Even our allies in Europe are clinging to past traditions of governance and rely upon the trades between dictators and the order they keep. Our brief period of diminished values during the Cold War came to an end with Saddam. We inherited these sentiments and we turned our backs on the Middle East for "stability." Europe very much still believes in that stability by any means necessary. There are bigger reasons our "allies" was against removing Saddam.

However, this cannot be imposed by force, but rather, individuals must simply have an incentive to embrace the modern world. You claim that we are not imposing Democracy in Iraq. That is absurd claim.

Actually, you wrote that, "You can't just impose Democracy at the end of a rifle." I claimed that we are not using the ends of our rifles. They chose to vote and they chose their constitution. Both of which, our haters "forecasted" to fail.

And if a seperation of Iraq is the future answer and their wishes, then so be it. This is what democracy and freedom is all about. We did not force these people together. We merely removed the tyrant that kept them in line "at the end of a rifle." We can only encourage what is in their best interest. They will choose their future. If civil war is where their hardened Radicals are destined then so be it. If the Muslim world rose up and fought for what is right, then the Radical element (minority) would simply be killed off. Civil war can cleanse societies.

Globalism is not about accepting western influence either. The west has been loosing power and influence for a century now. That is not going to change. If anything, this century will probably herald in the rise of the east.

No way. This is legacy thinking often found on the campuses. The same type of thinking that declares how much the world hates us with complete disregard for who hates us and what they really stand for. All those that hate us are from governments that restrict and oppress or simply rely upon all those historical scams that honor tyranny behind "soveriegn borders" or simply wink at UN corruption. Some simply have never forgiven us for spoiling their fun over the last full century. The future power house on this world will be the Atlantic Triangle. It will be all those cultural lines that connect North America to South America to Africa to Spain and to England. All those immigrants from all over the world that come to America, do so because they are leaving their past behind. They seek brighter futures for their children and prosperity. Globalism is very much about accepting the western culture. Our culture very much defines the word progress. Free trade, cultural mixes, military heritage, economic strength, civilizational creativity, and entertainment. Go to any backwater locale in the world and ask for a Coke. Welcome to America.

At this point, our best bet would be to completely abandon the idea of a unified Iraq, and divide the nation into a loose confederacy three separate states, with the oil revenues divided between them. However, the likelihood of even that being successful is pretty slim.

It is not time to abandon anything. You don't know what is going on inside Iraq except for the headline that reads "40 killed." If the time comes, a seperate Iraq will be a possibility and we should stand up for what we are trying to represent and support independance. However, until they choose this, we should support the current elected government. Turning our backs on the Shi'ite and Kurds who are thankful that they are Saddamless is not wise. However, with the Kurds controlling the oil fields in the North, the Shi'ites controlling the oil fields in the South, and the Sunni sitting squarely in the middle where there are no oil fields is also a hurdle.

Our problem is the Radical Sunni. The same problem we are facing in Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, Ehtiopia, Syria, "Palestine," Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. This is the legacy and the disease of the "House of Saud."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Mr. Kristol's points have been countered in words and by reality. They are just an attempt to put a good face on his failed NeoCon policy. His points make sense as long as you don't look at reality. "Misson accomplished!"

Oh for fuc/ks sakes this isn't mindless rant filled with vitriol Bush hatred really isn't worth a response but alas I'm going to anyways.

As to my hysterical concerns about the growing NeoCon fascism (name calling), I wish my friend was around so you could explain to him why his father died in a Japanese concentration camp in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I guess that was the imagination of hysterical Japanese American child looking through a concentration camp fence. But then I suppose you would have supported that too as long as it wasn't happening to you. The Germans watched as people where taken to their camps too! My friend lost his father, his father's business and his father's home. Don't tell me about hysterics! It happened and with so many militarist sheep in this country it can happen again!

I don't recall Mr. Kristol signing the order to intern the Japanese I believe that would be the hero of the left one FDR. Furthermore; labeling the internment camps as concentration camps in an attempt to make the ludicrous comparison between them and the concentration camps of Nazi Germany is quite a stunning display as to your lack of historical knowledge.

It's possible that some of us can see the warnings coming of "possible" loss of actual freedoms when our King is allowed to interpret the Geneva Convention like a judge and the Bill of Rights is limited by the Patriot Act.

Tell me sir where do you get the idea that non-citizen captured enemy combatants are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention or the Bill of Rights?

Do you expect fascism to come with flashing lights and a warning sign?

No I expect that it will come from radical leftists like you.

Do you think the people of Germany expected Hitler to go as far as he did

Actually ya it's what he campaigned on.

when they cheered him as you cheer King Bush.

Aww the Bush Hitler analogy reduction ad Hitlerum, my my you're so original.

As so many of our elected legislators have said, we are willing to give Bush the powers he needs to fight terrorism,

Perhaps you would rather we didn't fight terrorism?

but he wants them with no oversight like a dictator.

According to whom? You? If that were the case then explain Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, and Rasul V. Bush.

How can you not see that he is doing the same things the monster dictators of South American countries have done

I don't know perhaps I'm drinking the wrong flavor Kool-Aid. And as I look towards the container I see that is exactly the problem fuc/k me this isn't Kool-Aid it's Gator-Aid.

with their secret prisons of torture in rendition programs in other countries.

There were 14 high ranking know AQ members held in overseas detention centers and since the Hamdan decision they have all been transferred to Gitmo.

His own party is becoming afraid of him and his NeoCon masters while you wave the flag like a good sheep with blinders on!

Says the man spouting moveon and DU talking points left and right. Tell me are you Soro's payroll?

These dictatorial preemptive wars and the eroding of our constitutional freedoms are all serving the plan of Osama Bin Ladin and his kind.

Way to start with a false assertion and steam roll it right into a bullshit conclusion.

Bush's own government reports even state that we have created more terrorism and are less safe due to his Kowboy King's arrogant NeoCon actions.

Oh citing one line of one paragraph of a 50 pg. comprehensive report your intellectual integrity is astonishing.

First rule when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! This isn't a football game.

Well actually if you had can stop drinking the Kool Aid for two seconds and take time to actually read the NIE it clearly states that pulling out of Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster.

You don't have to back your side no matter how poorly they play! That's called being an blind faith ideologue! I'm not a Democrat or in support of a candidate.

Oh I know you're a left wing radical who seems to think that Bush is more of a threat than OBL.

I'm just a person who believes we don't have to give up our Bill of Rights

Anyone here who has had their civil liberties stolen please raise their hand.

or torture people to fight terrorists!

Welp tell that to KSM who broke under waterboarding in less than two minutes. And I'm sorry I don't consider a non-lethal interogation methods that don't leave any damage on the detainee to be torture. There's a huge difference between coercive interrogation and putting someone on the rack.

In fact we can't win that way because it encourages terrorism by validating their belief that we are evil!

Yes yes we know fighting and killing terrorists makes them dislike us I'll try to condone myself. Newsflash my blathering little radical the terrorists already consider us to be the great satan these people start riots on account of cartoons that they don't like maybe we ought to do away with the first amendment too, afterall we wouldn't want to anger the Islamic-fascists.

 

[Indy]

This thread is just disgusting but for a different reason than you might think. Its disgusting because the article you posted lies to the people who read it by making them think that you have to choose between two parties with different perspectives on the war. Hell no you don't. You can vote for independents and moderates at the next election and the last time I checked there is no law that states that you have to vote for either a republican or democrat. A liar is still a liar reguardless of what party they belong to. Throw all of the bums out.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This thread is just disgusting but for a different reason than you might think. Its disgusting because the article you posted lies to the people who read it by making them think that you have to choose between two parties with different perspectives on the war. Hell no you don't. You can vote for independents and moderates at the next election and the last time I checked there is no law that states that you have to vote for either a republican or democrat. A liar is still a liar reguardless of what party they belong to. Throw all of the bums out.

Sure if you want to throw your vote away.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote by TOT (Sure if you want to throw your vote away. )

If a person decides to vote, he / she is not throwing that vote away.
It is true that the person they vote for may well not be the person who is eventually elected.
If you take the majority of elections you would find that the difference between the winning candidate and the loser is generally (not always, but generally) no more than 5% of those that voted for the winner.
I am now and always have been a Republican voter, but the party for which I have supported is not the GOP currently in power.
My party was one that stood fair and square by the dictum "The buck ends here", my party did not have senior politicians in it who refused to act when they were confronted with the reported (and later proven) misdeeds of another member of my party, my party did not have as President a man who continually ignores a situation that has gone bad and refuses to do anything to correct that situation, my party did not have a President who pays lip service to supporting our troops, but denies them adequate protection in the performance of their duties, my Party would not have condoned felons and mobsters being allowed to work unhindered in the nations Ports, my party did not have a President who took over 24 hours before he decided to visit the site of 9/11 and 3 days before he decided it was safe for him to overfly and view the devastation caused by Katrina, my Party did not have a President who refused to listen to wise voices before hastily rushing in to acts.

Unfortunately my Party has as it's leader a person who is totally inadequate in the defense of my Country.

If my Party acts in a sensible way then I will laud my Party and congratulate it's leaders, should it continue to push and barge in order to get it's way regardless of any restraints on it's abuse of legislative powers then I will cease my support of my Party.

I am responsible only for 1 vote, my own, so that will not make any difference to my party, however if you multiply those who are deeply disturbed by my party's actions by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, then you TOT, will find that ,may well be a different matter.

What you seem to fail to realize is that the use of profane language is not a great incentive for someone to come round to your point of view, nor is it polite to deliberately insult persons who hold different political views to your own.

Being able to hold differing political views is what makes the word Democracy meaningful.

Attempting to coerce people to believe your point of view is being Dictatorial.

And surely this last is what we in the US are fighting against?

I find that folk are more likely to listen to you if you respect them and their points of view, even when these are not what you believe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Quote by TOT (Sure if you want to throw your vote away. )

If a person decides to vote, he / she is not throwing that vote away.

A) I was joking.

B) The libertarians are far more effective at implementing libertarian reform by running as Republicans than they are when they run as libertarians IE they actually get elected.

My party was one that stood fair and square by the dictum "The buck ends here", my party did not have senior politicians in it who refused to act when they were confronted with the reported (and later proven) misdeeds of another member of my party,

Speaker Hastert didn't do anything wrong the email that he knew about was not sexually explicit in nature the most provacative thing in it was Foley asking about the former Page's well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph but even so Hastert and others felt it was inappropriate and requested Foley to stop it because they knew he was gay. But if they would have called a censure and requested that he resign with no evidence other than an email requesting a picture and the knowledge that he was gay you can rest assured that they would have been accused of gay bashing and homophobic paranoia.

I can see the Dem talking points now: "Homophobic republicans overeact to a harmless email letter which was nothing more than a show of concern for Representative Foley's congressional page who was in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster," and instead of the current debate we would be sitting here debating the point that just because someone is gay that does not make them a pedophile, then someone would chime in with: "just another example of the homophic religious right and their constant gay bashing," and since Katrina was involved they would have undoubtedly added: "and Bush hates black people too," and the conversation would undoubtedly have morphed into a discussion about gay adoption, and so on and so forth. This was a no win situation for the Republicans.

my party did not have as President a man who continually ignores a situation that has gone bad and refuses to do anything to correct that situation

Well actually they have changed strategy to deal with the insurgency.

my party did not have a President who pays lip service to supporting our troops, but denies them adequate protection in the performance of their duties,

FYI they have been provided with up-armored humvees and additional body armor, your talking points are a bit dated, but hay I've got a response to that one too; like Rumsfeld said: "you go to war with the army you have not the one you wish you had." And you can thank the Clinton administrations military cuts for that.

my Party would not have condoned felons and mobsters being allowed to work unhindered in the nations Ports,

So when did your party exist? Because mobsters have controlled the ports since the 1930's.

my party did not have a President who took over 24 hours before he decided to visit the site of 9/11

So he should have gone there while there was still the possibility of further attacks? That would have been great if not only did they knock down the towers but killed the President in the process, it was a security assessment and the secret service made the right call.

and 3 days before he decided it was safe for him to overfly and view the devastation caused by Katrina,

And Bush hates black people too.

Unfortunately my Party has as it's leader a person who is totally inadequate in the defense of my Country.

According to you.

What you seem to fail to realize is that the use of profane language is not a great incentive for someone to come round to your point of view, nor is it polite to deliberately insult persons who hold different political views to your own.

What the fuc/k, sh!t you don't ****ing say?

Being able to hold differing political views is what makes the word Democracy meaningful.

Attempting to coerce people to believe your point of view is being Dictatorial.

And surely this last is what we in the US are fighting against?

Actually the founding fathers didn't like any political parties they thought them to be to devisive, man were they way off.

 

[Spencer Collins]

Mr. Kristol's points have been countered in words and by reality. They are just an attempt to put a good face on his failed NeoCon policy. His points make sense as long as you don't look at reality. "Misson accomplished!"

As to my hysterical concerns about the growing NeoCon fascism (name calling), I wish my friend was around so you could explain to him why his father died in a Japanese concentration camp in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I guess that was the imagination of hysterical Japanese American child looking through a concentration camp fence. But then I suppose you would have supported that too as long as it wasn't happening to you. The Germans watched as people where taken to their camps too! My friend lost his father, his father's business and his father's home. Don't tell me about hysterics! It happened and with so many militarist sheep in this country it can happen again!

It's possible that some of us can see the warnings coming of "possible" loss of actual freedoms when our King is allowed to interpret the Geneva Convention like a judge and the Bill of Rights is limited by the Patriot Act. Do you expect fascism to come with flashing lights and a warning sign? Do you think the people of Germany expected Hitler to go as far as he did when they cheered him as you cheer King Bush. As so many of our elected legislators have said, we are willing to give Bush the powers he needs to fight terrorism, but he wants them with no oversight like a dictator. How can you not see that he is doing the same things the monster dictators of South American countries have done with their secret prisons of torture in rendition programs in other countries. His own party is becoming afraid of him and his NeoCon masters while you wave the flag like a good sheep with blinders on! These dictatorial preemptive wars and the eroding of our constitutional freedoms are all serving the plan of Osama Bin Ladin and his kind. Bush's own government reports even state that we have created more terrorism and are less safe due to his Kowboy King's arrogant NeoCon actions. First rule when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! This isn't a football game. You don't have to back your side no matter how poorly they play! That's called being an blind faith ideologue! I'm not a Democrat or in support of a candidate. I'm just a person who believes we don't have to give up our Bill of Rights or torture people to fight terrorists! In fact we can't win that way because it encourages terrorism by validating their belief that we are evil!

Finally a man with vission..thank you Mr. D

Anyone see the news tonight? Read below....
Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

EXCLUSIVE: Bush On Iraq Becoming Vietnam

In an exclusive interview, President Bush said "He could be right"
when George Stephanopoulos asked him about New York Times' columnist
Thomas Friedman's claim that the situation in Iraq right now might be
the equivalent of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam.

Tet was widely seen as a turning point in the war.