What should we do now: for Liberals

[5stringJeff]

This is a very serious question. It is aimed at the liberals, moderates, and hard-core Marxists on the board.

It is November of 2004. President Bush has now won re-election. What should his course of action be regarding the war on terrorism worldwide, and the war in Iraq specifically? No fair turning back the clock and saying "We shouldn't have been there in the first place." What should we do now?

 

[MrMarbles]

This is a very serious question. It is aimed at the liberals, moderates, and hard-core Marxists on the board.

It is November of 2004. President Bush has now won re-election. What should his course of action be regarding the war on terrorism worldwide, and the war in Iraq specifically? No fair turning back the clock and saying "We shouldn't have been there in the first place." What should we do now?

Focus your attention on finding the ones responsible for 9/11. Find a resonable, and peaceful way out of Iraq, and allow the people to decide they're own fate, and resources. Drop the missle shield; dela with N. Korea; open the borders to Canadian beef, and respect NAFTA.

 

[dilloduck]

Focus your attention on finding the ones responsible for 9/11. Find a resonable, and peaceful way out of Iraq, and allow the people to decide they're own fate, and resources. Drop the missle shield; dela with N. Korea; open the borders to Canadian beef, and respect NAFTA.

According to many on this board, the whole Islam religion is responsible for 9/11. What do we do with 'em after we round em all up? A reasonable and peaceful exit from Iraq is an oxymoron.

 

[drowe]

...What should his course of action be regarding the war on terrorism worldwide, and the war in Iraq specifically?...

...open the borders to Canadian beef, and respect NAFTA.

Marbles-

What on Earth do Canadian Beef and NAFTA have to do with Terrorism and Iraq?

 

[Isaac Brock]

This is a very serious question. It is aimed at the liberals, moderates, and hard-core Marxists on the board.

It is November of 2004. President Bush has now won re-election. What should his course of action be regarding the war on terrorism worldwide, and the war in Iraq specifically? No fair turning back the clock and saying "We shouldn't have been there in the first place." What should we do now?

Fair enough question jeff!

You're in Iraq, whether the world likes in or not so do your best and I do believe the US is trying hard. The odds are and have always been completely stacked against them, unfortunately. I don't believe there is any ideal solution, unfortunately.

Afghanistan is a different matter. The country is much more stable and receptive to Western support. Let all the western nations build Afghanistan's infrastructure, debt free, so that they have a viable national industry in which to promote prosperty. With prosperty comes democracy, rarely the other way around.

All nations, not just the US, have to put pressure on Sudan and think it's time for a joint AU-NATO peacekeeping force for Sudan. It's a clear and present humanitarian crisis-Rwanda style.

NK and Iran are nuclear threats. World military ultimatum's must be made. The world has sat on there proverbial asses too long. NK first, and Iran second.

The Isreal/Palestine question must be settled in 2005. They need peace, the region needs peace. Pressure must be applied strongly and equally on both sides, perhaps with Western trade incentives to sweeten the deal. In addition, Israeli subsidizes/grants should be threatened as part of this deal.

The War on Terror, in my opinion, can never be won with bullets alone. Solving Israel/Palestine question would help. A stable Afghanistan, and hopefully Iraq would do wonders. Targetted, large quantities of foreign aid for counties that embrace American or Western style values is also good (Bangladesh, Turkey, Afghanistan etc). Serve notice to the world that the US supports its allies.

The power of Western powers since the early 20th century has never been their militaries, but rather their economic clout, especially the United States. A billion dollars may buy a miltary a few planes, but it can completely rejuvinate a country and people with it. That I believe is the new power of the 21st century and not to exploit it on the War on Terror would be fool hearty.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Marbles-

What on Earth do Canadian Beef and NAFTA have to do with Terrorism and Iraq?

Well I reckon us Canadians can have pipe dreams of our own selfish design!

 

[MrMarbles]

According to many on this board, the whole Islam religion is responsible for 9/11. What do we do with 'em after we round em all up? A reasonable and peaceful exit from Iraq is an oxymoron.

The Islam religion is not responsible for 9/11. Why would you round 'em all up. Just punish those who have done you harm. The pre-emptive stuff is a iffy stragety at best. Putting all your troops on Hercs and flying out of Iraq is peacful, maybe not reasonable. It's a mess, maybe a really big swiffer will do the job.

Sorry about the beef stuf, i was on a tangent.

 

[Merlin1047]

Focus your attention on finding the ones responsible for 9/11. Find a resonable, and peaceful way out of Iraq, and allow the people to decide they're own fate, and resources. Drop the missle shield; dela with N. Korea; open the borders to Canadian beef, and respect NAFTA.

Here's the way I interpret your sentiments:

Give up in Iraq. Allow the people to descend back into the same abusive slavery that existed before the war. Turn Saddam loose and apologize to him. Make no effort to defend yourselves from nuclear missile attack potential from N. Korea or China because it makes us Canadians uncomfortable. Don't do anything drastic with N. Korea, simply return to the Clintonian policy of appeasement because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy and gives the illusion of security. Allow anyone who wants to screw you over in trade to do so. The American economy is nothing more than a dumping ground for subsidized goods from other nations and Americans have no right to defend their own interests.

Have I got that right?

 

[musicman]

Here's the way I interpret your sentiments:

Give up in Iraq. Allow the people to descend back into the same abusive slavery that existed before the war. Turn Saddam loose and apologize to him. Make no effort to defend yourselves from nuclear missile attack potential from N. Korea or China because it makes us Canadians uncomfortable. Don't do anything drastic with N. Korea, simply return to the Clintonian policy of appeasement because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy and gives the illusion of security. Allow anyone who wants to screw you over in trade to do so. The American economy is nothing more than a dumping ground for subsidized goods from other nations and Americans have no right to defend their own interests.

Have I got that right?

Almost. Don't forget, "Thank you, O morally superior world, for stomping my ass. Clearly, I deserve it. I'm sorry if I bruised your feet with my unworthy bones".

 

[Merlin1047]

Almost. Don't forget, "Thank you, O morally superior world, for stomping my ass. Clearly, I deserve it. I'm sorry if I bruised your feet with my unworthy bones".

Oh yes indeed. How DID I forget that?

My bad.

:usa:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Focus your attention on finding the ones responsible for 9/11..

We've been doing that - aren't you paying attention?

Find a resonable, and peaceful way out of Iraq, and allow the people to decide they're own fate, and resources...

Peaceful way out? What exactly would you propose? Since you are obviously the peacenik here, you should be the expert with inspiring peace advice. But in case you can't think of any, we are still going to allow the people of Iraq to decide their own fate - January elections coming up - that is if we can beat off the insurgents who would shutdown the elections and any freedom in a heartbeat.

Drop the missle shield;

And what good would that do? Obviously you are a liberal from Canada as the Canadian conservatives are for the missile shield since the liberals have totally decimated just about all of your defenses.

"The average age of the equipment in the Canadian Forces is over 20 years and it hasn't been well-maintained."

The Liberal government reduced defence spending by 23% and cut the number of regular military personnel to approximately 60,000 from 80,000 between 1993 and 2000. There were 120,000 people in the Canadian military in 1958.

In 2003, the defence budget was increased $800-million to $12.7-billion, the single largest increase since the Liberals came to power. But that still left the total below that of 1991, when the Mulroney Conservatives committed troops to the Gulf War and the defence budget stood at $12.8-billion.

Jay Hill, the Conservative defence critic, said the reports outline the result of more than a decade of Liberal cuts to the Canadian Forces.

"They shouldn't even be in this position," he said. "They shouldn't be having to look for nickel and dime savings when the government is blowing hundreds of millions on sponsorship programs."

http://www.falange.us/canada.htm

deal with N. Korea.

Worried? Why don't you liberal Canucks deal with them? Show us the great method. I mean, since you guys know all the answers... :blah2:

 

[Patriot]

According to many on this board, the whole Islam religion is responsible for 9/11. What do we do with 'em after we round em all up? A reasonable and peaceful exit from Iraq is an oxymoron.

Personally I wouldnt mind exterminating the radical ones at all. Nothing on my conscience but zen. As for the others who who just want to find themselves and be the best possible humans they can be I would recommend a serious deprogramming session starting with Dr. Ali Sina.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656


A friend objected “The way to overcome terrorism is surely not to simply fight Muslims wherever possible. A battle of ideas is needed. The appropriate course is to assert the supremacy of Humanist principles, such as the rule of law, rather than the rule of God, as a way of diminishing the ideology behind terrorism.”

I fully agree with this statement. In fact fighting Islam ideologically is the raison d'être of Faith Freedom International. We are perfectly aware that unless the very concept of Islam is defeated the Islamic zealotry and hence Islamic Terrorism cannot be eradicated. However, Islamic Terrorism is more than an ideology, it is also militant and therefore it must be defeated militarily.

True Muslims take their guidance and inspiration from their prophet and follow his examples. Muhammad spoke the language of violence and understood that language. He did not attack his victims because they had done something wrong. He attacked them because he calculated that he could win and he only attacked those who were weaker. He took them by surprise, when they were unarmed, attending to their daily business. Nonetheless he fabricated pretexts and excuses for his attacks. For example when he raided Merchant caravans, the excuse was that they belonged to the Meccans and since the Meccans had rejected his call and ridiculed him he was justified to retaliate. When he attacked the Bani Qaynuqa, the excuse was that one of them insulted a Muslim woman. When he massacred the Bani Quraiza, the excuse was that they had conspired with the Meccans even thought this was not true. When he raided the Bani Nadir, the excuse was that Angel Gabriel had informed him that they were plotting to assassinate him. Of course Muhammad would not say I am a megalomaniac psychopath and I want to dominate the world. He would concoct lies to justify his crimes with pretexts and excuses.

Today Muslims have many excuses for their crimes against Humanity or what they call Jihad. But the intent has remained the same and that is world domination.

When Muslims start attacking others it is not because someone has done something wrong to them and they are retaliating. They are waging Jihad and Jihad has nothing to do with America , Israel or any other country. The Muslims would have found other excuses if America and Israel did not exist. In fact Islamic Jihad dates back to 621 C.E., the year Muhammad migrated to Medina and found a group of beguiled and benighted men at his disposal willing to kill and be killed at his behest. America and Israel are only the latest targets of this Jihad.

The objective is to conquer the world and establish the rule of Shari'a. Muhammad ambushed merchant caravans, raided villages and towns and massacred innocent people by thousands. This had nothing to do with Israel or America. After his death his followers invaded Yemen, Byzantium, Mesopotamia, Iran, Abyssinia, Egypt, India, Europe and virtually all the countries that fell under the Islamic domination not because any of these had done anything to Muslims but simply because they were there, they had wealth and Muslims could conquer them.

Jihad is a pillar of faith in Islam. Muslims cannot just discard it. For a few hundreds of years Jihad was not fought; but that does not mean that it was forgotten. The reason Muslims stopped practicing Jihad was not because they started practicing a moderate version of Islam. It was because they had no strength to fight. According to the teachings of Islam and the examples set by its prophet, when Muslims are weak and cannot fight, they must wait until they regain their strength and fight only when victory is foreseeable.

This is the sunnah (tradition) or Muhammad. The objective is to fight a war that can be won and if the enemy is stronger and the prospect of winning is slim, the guideline is to withhold the fight and negotiate peace. This example was set by Muhammad at Hudaibiyah were he withdrew his troops and signed a peace treaty with the Meccans when he realized that in a confrontation, he could be defeated.

This treaty gave him peace of mind from the South and an opportunity to subdue smaller tribes to the North. Immediately after signing the peace treaty of Hudaibiyah Muhammad marched towards Khaibar and with no warning he fell of that fortress when people had gone out after their daily businesses. He killed their men and took their women and children as hostage. The city was a prosperous Jewish town and the enormous booty allowed him to strengthen his military power and invade other cities. Two years later, he broke the treaty that he had signed with the Meccans and while in Hudaibiyah he had only 1500 men, this time he brought along 10,000 strong. The Meccans were overwhelmed and the town capitulated.

This is how Muslims have operated ever since. They offer peace and sign treaties when in their estimation the prospect of winning the war is not good. But they will break their treaties the moment they become confident of their victory.

 

[Mariner]

direction:

1. Fire Donald Rumsfeld. His tactic of using minimal U.S. troops in Iraq, under the mistaken assumption that there was one "Iraqi people" who would cheer our arrival, has been proven horribly wrong. (After this weekend's amazing tiff between the President, 96 U.S. Senators, the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 families on one side, and Rumsfeld+Sensenbrenner on the other re: reorganizing intelligence, I would imagine that Rummy's chances of being fired have just increased.)

2. Re-establish the Geneva Convention in regard to the treatment of all prisoners except known terrorists, i.e. distinguish between Iraqis who have lost family members and are defending their homeland, or who feel that they will lose under a new government (the mostly Sunni insurgents) and the entirely separate category of Al Qaeda and other terrorist fighters.

3. Apologize, loudly and clearly, for Abu Ghraib, for the enormous loss of Iraqi civilian life (Saddam killed what, 300,000? And we've now killed 1/3 that), on Al Jazeera.

4. Reverse the Porter Goss policy of weeding out anyone in the CIA who doesn't agree with the president's positions. People who disagree are the most valuable people one can have--they point out flaws in one's reasoning and can save one from enormous errors. Had the administration allowed open debate about the WMD evidence between CIA, Energy Dept., Congress, and the public (rather than specifically "streamlining" reports by removing dissents, and establishing gag orders, as they did), we might never have been in this mess in the first place. Similarly, many people (including myself) doubted the neocon idea that a dictator who remained in power by inflaming ethnic tensions (Kurd/Sunni/Shi'ite) could simply be replaced by democracy--this skips the step of resolving the ethnic tensions.

5. Begin treating Iraqi dead with respect. The family of each innocent victim of 9/11 received several million dollars. The family of each innocent Iraqi victim of our invasion of that country gets a few hundred dollars--but we don't even keep count, list names, tell stories, or in any way honor the involuntary sacrifice they have made to an outsider's notion of what is right for their country.

6. Militarily, I don't know what to suggest. Bush finds himself in a true catch-22: on the one hand our forces are needed to maintain safety; on the other, their presence inflames many Iraqis feelings.

7. Do everything possible to win the "hearts and minds" of not only the Iraqi people but also of Muslims worldwide (terrorists excepted, of course). Increase broadcasts of U.S.-viewpoint TV and radio. Increase funding for centers of education about our society, particularly its religious open-ness. Remove subsidies to producers in this country that artificially impoverish poor countries. Cease the superior tone of the colonizer or the crusader which mars so many of Bush and his advisers' statements, and replace it with a humbler approach.

Overall, I don't feel hopeful, Jeff, though of course I support each and every troop in his/her efforts, and am moved by the many positive stories when the true American spirits shows itself.

Mariner.

 

[no1tovote4]

I would give you some positive points but cannot as I have already recently. This is well thought out regardless of whether I agree completely or not.

"1. Fire Donald Rumsfeld. His tactic of using minimal U.S. troops in Iraq, under the mistaken assumption that there was one "Iraqi people" who would cheer our arrival, has been proven horribly wrong. (After this weekend's amazing tiff between the President, 96 U.S. Senators, the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 families on one side, and Rumsfeld+Sensenbrenner on the other re: reorganizing intelligence, I would imagine that Rummy's chances of being fired have just increased.)"

I think this one may just happen. Although I will miss his humor in press conferences.

"2. Re-establish the Geneva Convention in regard to the treatment of all prisoners except known terrorists, i.e. distinguish between Iraqis who have lost family members and are defending their homeland, or who feel that they will lose under a new government (the mostly Sunni insurgents) and the entirely separate category of Al Qaeda and other terrorist fighters."

This would be difficult as the differences are minor, but a worthy goal nonetheless.


"3. Apologize, loudly and clearly, for Abu Ghraib, for the enormous loss of Iraqi civilian life (Saddam killed what, 300,000? And we've now killed 1/3 that), on Al Jazeera."


This should have been done at the beginning, it does nothing but undermine our efforts there.

"4. Reverse the Porter Goss policy of weeding out anyone in the CIA who doesn't agree with the president's positions. People who disagree are the most valuable people one can have--they point out flaws in one's reasoning and can save one from enormous errors. Had the administration allowed open debate about the WMD evidence between CIA, Energy Dept., Congress, and the public (rather than specifically "streamlining" reports by removing dissents, and establishing gag orders, as they did), we might never have been in this mess in the first place. Similarly, many people (including myself) doubted the neocon idea that a dictator who remained in power by inflaming ethnic tensions (Kurd/Sunni/Shi'ite) could simply be replaced by democracy--this skips the step of resolving the ethnic tensions."

That isn't what they are doing, they are weeding out those who make it their position to report that they don't agree with present policy. Disagree all you want, make it known to the Administration you disagree but don't report to news agencies as if it was the way that everybody feels there, as clearly it isn't. The ethnic tensions are clearly an issue. I do not believe that Iraq was one country until the English made it so, there is no reason to continue to keep it that way other than we said we would. A three state system with a weak Federal Government may solve that issue.

"5. Begin treating Iraqi dead with respect. The family of each innocent victim of 9/11 received several million dollars. The family of each innocent Iraqi victim of our invasion of that country gets a few hundred dollars--but we don't even keep count, list names, tell stories, or in any way honor the involuntary sacrifice they have made to an outsider's notion of what is right for their country."

We did and do, however the "insurgents" are boobytrapping the bodies with explosives and killing our Marines and Soldiers. There must be some middle ground that keeps the US troops safe while allowing for ethical treatment of the dead.

"6. Militarily, I don't know what to suggest. Bush finds himself in a true catch-22: on the one hand our forces are needed to maintain safety; on the other, their presence inflames many Iraqis feelings. "

A strong hand will be necessary especially if the US is to keep the promise made for elections and quickly. Just as H.W. Bush kept the US promise of not removing Saddam from power, we should keep the promise we made to get the elections in and us out as quickly as possible.

"7. Do everything possible to win the "hearts and minds" of not only the Iraqi people but also of Muslims worldwide (terrorists excepted, of course). Increase broadcasts of U.S.-viewpoint TV and radio. Increase funding for centers of education about our society, particularly its religious open-ness. Remove subsidies to producers in this country that artificially impoverish poor countries. Cease the superior tone of the colonizer or the crusader which mars so many of Bush and his advisers' statements, and replace it with a humbler approach."

I agree, a more open approach especially to trade will increase our economy as well as increase postive outlook of our country.

"Overall, I don't feel hopeful, Jeff, though of course I support each and every troop in his/her efforts, and am moved by the many positive stories when the true American spirits shows itself."

I do feel hopeful, I believe that Bush has already implemented most of this.

 

[Avatar4321]

Afghanistan is a different matter. The country is much more stable and receptive to Western support. Let all the western nations build Afghanistan's infrastructure, debt free, so that they have a viable national industry in which to promote prosperty. With prosperty comes democracy, rarely the other way around.

I disagree. It is Freedom that brings wealth not wealth that brings freedom. Hence why all these tyranny's throughout the world are not prosperous. You cant be prosperous without the freedom to make your own way in the world and you cant have that if you have to watch yourself so that you dont get yourself beheaded or your family slaughtered or have the government taking so much of your money its not profitable to work anymore.

 

[MrMarbles]

Here's the way I interpret your sentiments:

Give up in Iraq. Allow the people to descend back into the same abusive slavery that existed before the war. Turn Saddam loose and apologize to him. Make no effort to defend yourselves from nuclear missile attack potential from N. Korea or China because it makes us Canadians uncomfortable. Don't do anything drastic with N. Korea, simply return to the Clintonian policy of appeasement because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy and gives the illusion of security. Allow anyone who wants to screw you over in trade to do so. The American economy is nothing more than a dumping ground for subsidized goods from other nations and Americans have no right to defend their own interests.

Have I got that right?

Good 'ol cons and they're jump to irrationality.

The people of Iraq have no say over they're own freedom, don't even try to pretend that they do. Give them the chance to choose they're own gov't, and style, not just one appointed by you. Allow them full control over they're natural resources e.i. oil exports.

Saddam should be tried in an international court like all other criminals against humanity. Iraq is split 1/3 in favour of US, 1/3 in favour of anything but US and Saddam, 1/3 in favour of Saddam. Saddam should get a fair trial. Remember, you are the good guys, you don't stoop to his level. If his trial is in Iraq, crediblity is gone out the window.

Missile shield e.i. arms race e.i. WW3. Instead of preparing to fight the possible next threat to your superpower, why not try and make friends, improve relations and open a dialogue for any possible hostility between you and China.

N. Korea; by going into Iraq, if you don't do something dtrastic with N. Korea, then you are hyprocrites. Saddam has no WMDs you invaded, N. Korea flaunts them and you make nicey nice.

America pushed for NAFTA. And now you don't want to follow international law that you put into place. Whats with that? It's your own protectionist ways that are hurting you.

And what good would that do? Obviously you are a liberal from Canada as the Canadian conservatives are for the missile shield since the liberals have totally decimated just about all of your defenses.

Since we are not assholes to everyone, we are not at threat.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I disagree. It is Freedom that brings wealth not wealth that brings freedom. Hence why all these tyranny's throughout the world are not prosperous. You cant be prosperous without the freedom to make your own way in the world and you cant have that if you have to watch yourself so that you dont get yourself beheaded or your family slaughtered or have the government taking so much of your money its not profitable to work anymore.

Do you really think so though? I look at history and it is more often than not the other way around. When democracy successfully takes route it is in countries that have progressed to a certain degree of economic wealth, ie a development of a successful middle class. Installing democracies on countries with highly stratified societies tends to lead to collapse.

 

[dumphauler]

Good 'ol cons and they're jump to irrationality.

The people of Iraq have no say over they're own freedom, don't even try to pretend that they do. Give them the chance to choose they're own gov't, and style, not just one appointed by you. Allow them full control over they're natural resources e.i. oil exports.

Saddam should be tried in an international court like all other criminals against humanity. Iraq is split 1/3 in favour of US, 1/3 in favour of anything but US and Saddam, 1/3 in favour of Saddam. Saddam should get a fair trial. Remember, you are the good guys, you don't stoop to his level. If his trial is in Iraq, crediblity is gone out the window.

Missile shield e.i. arms race e.i. WW3. Instead of preparing to fight the possible next threat to your superpower, why not try and make friends, improve relations and open a dialogue for any possible hostility between you and China.

N. Korea; by going into Iraq, if you don't do something dtrastic with N. Korea, then you are hyprocrites. Saddam has no WMDs you invaded, N. Korea flaunts them and you make nicey nice.

America pushed for NAFTA. And now you don't want to follow international law that you put into place. Whats with that? It's your own protectionist ways that are hurting you.

Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do, We should work with other goverment's to stop terrorest And tighten up security here at our port's and BORDER'S That won't happen though because republican's like cheap labor to much- It's interesting they love free market's untill it mean's they have to pay more and then they will Ignor the law so they can keep screwing the american worker. I think the american people also have to make a decishion on just how much they are willing to give up in the way of freedom - Are they willing to live in a police state just to protect themself's -I think they are. N korea We wont do anything because remember they have wmd's and more importantly they are willing and ABLE at a moment's notice to decimate a large portion of S.Korea That is what is realy going on there- We can't attack because they are holding S. Korea hostage. By the way we are hyprocrites! NAFTA suck's I hear that GIANT sucking sound Not good for them(mexian farmers) Not good for us(Amerian worker) GOOD for multinational coreration's! I'm SO off topic :huh:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Good 'ol cons and they're jump to irrationality.

The people of Iraq have no say over they're own freedom, don't even try to pretend that they do. Give them the chance to choose they're own gov't, and style, not just one appointed by you. Allow them full control over they're natural resources e.i. oil exports.

Saddam should be tried in an international court like all other criminals against humanity. Iraq is split 1/3 in favour of US, 1/3 in favour of anything but US and Saddam, 1/3 in favour of Saddam. Saddam should get a fair trial. Remember, you are the good guys, you don't stoop to his level. If his trial is in Iraq, crediblity is gone out the window.

Missile shield e.i. arms race e.i. WW3. Instead of preparing to fight the possible next threat to your superpower, why not try and make friends, improve relations and open a dialogue for any possible hostility between you and China.

N. Korea; by going into Iraq, if you don't do something dtrastic with N. Korea, then you are hyprocrites. Saddam has no WMDs you invaded, N. Korea flaunts them and you make nicey nice.

America pushed for NAFTA. And now you don't want to follow international law that you put into place. Whats with that? It's your own protectionist ways that are hurting you.





Since we are not assholes to everyone, we are not at threat.

You have the typical attitude of the "worldly" liberal losers. You hate us for what we have and what we can do. Our economics have helped the world countless times over but all you can do is whine about it. Our intervention has prevented countless threats to the free world but all you can do is scoff at us. I am so sick of you whiny wusses.

You think that if we just sing kumbaya with the world that everybody will just get along. Wake up you liberal fools. Ain't gonna happen. You think if we just hand out more $$$ everybody will be nicey nice. Sure they'll play along until they get the money but then they screw us. Look at the oil-for-food program for example. We have given away so much money you can't count it but the two-faced miserable despots will still threaten the world with their arms if they can develop them behind our backs. Are you suggesting we should just let all of them develop their arsenals to the point where they become significant threats just like N. Korea and then try to talk with them? That's just so dumb.

ps: Try telling Japan not to develop a missile shield. Tell them to just "talk nice" to the little bastard in N.K.

 

[hylandrdet]

This is a very serious question. It is aimed at the liberals, moderates, and hard-core Marxists on the board.

It is November of 2004. President Bush has now won re-election. What should his course of action be regarding the war on terrorism worldwide, and the war in Iraq specifically? No fair turning back the clock and saying "We shouldn't have been there in the first place." What should we do now?

Finish what we'd started; the problem lies within the nations we'd neglated during this "war". John Kerry had made it known that his' objections to the war had to do with us not adressing the REAL people behind 9/11. These people may be of Iranian, North Korean, Afghani or Pakistanian disscent.

Some of these nations are a year or two away from becoming legitimate NUCLEAR POWERS; yet we had done nothing but to destroy a third ranked muslim nation that had posed no threat to us whatsoever. To make matters worse, those nations speeded up their programs because they feel that a US invasion will happen.

My call is for the soldiers to stay in Iraq indefinitely; that means semi-permanent bases. Allow the elections to take place; allow the country to stabilize itself and to allow the economy to develop, then slowly withdrawl.

If we can show the rest of the world that we did not act out as a "rogue" nation, we can then end the political, economic and military hostilities that are currently against us.

Folks, most of the entire world thinks we're the enemy. I'll respect whatever GW wants to do so long as it is done with some sense of humility.