V.P. Debates...

[kwyckemynd00]

Actually that's not true at all. The democrats lost control of the senate because at the all the policies from the Clinton administration were coming from the far left. If you remember that was when Newt was in power and the republicans were pushing the contract with America. Being very politically shrewd Clinton basically stole welfare reform from the republicans. The problem is we are still subsidizing bastard children. Using a typical democrat tactic they simply changed the name of welfare to entitlement programs. In other words the government and people that don't work are entitled to your money.

Exactly (I guess I missed that quote..)

I think we need to put Iraq into context. Three thousand people died on 9-11 in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. If I am president I am sure as hell going to do every thing I can to make sure that doesn't happen again. You have intelligence telling us they are possibly have nuclear weapons. We know Iraq was spending money on materials that could have been used to make nuclear weapons. UN inspectors have not been Iraq for some time even tough he was in violation of many UN resolutions. We know that Sadam was bribing the UN, France, Germany , and Russia. In fact If my memory serves me correctly we found French made missiles in Iraq with the year 2002 on them. So the president made the decision to hit Iraq. I personally can't fault him for that. I think there are things we need to do here that are more important such as boarder security, overhauling the INS, and giving local PD the power to deport Illegal. The problem I have is there seems to be a politically correct ideology with the fighting of the war. IE not wanting to hurt anyone's feeling because we bombed a mosk full of people that were shooting at us, if there is a particular town or area that is a problem instead of blowing it up we send in troops to get shot at, and continually letting people like Al-Sadr live elevating him to a hero status. IMO those are the mistakes we made.

See, I agree with almost all of your post (except bombing mosques), but none of that matters to some of these Michale Moore lovers. They say, "hey...wait a minute! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11! Now everyone hates us! Bush sucks!" That's pretty much it in a nutshell for them. They see this problem the way the pussy ass europeans saw Hitler. This is just history "nearly" repeating itself. It would be history repeating itself (except terrorism spread across the glod would replace Hitler) if Gore were president and possibly Kerry; I have more respect for Kerry than Gore. Gore is a nutcase now. I'm pretty much done in this thread as far as this is concerned. I mean, IH, is a smart guy so I'm not going to demean him in that way, but he doesn't see fundamental reasons for justifications (and I guess to the same token I don't see his reasons for GWB and his admin being complete dickwads). There's nothing we can do to convince each other.

As far as the mosques, I think it was smart not to bomb the Mosque, b/c that would really piss people off and if our objective is to keep the country as passive as possible (note: as) until we get the hell out bombing a mosque would be akin to poking a beehive with a stick and not intending on poisoning the whole hive when they get pissed at us. I would like to bomb the mosques and blow Al-Sadr into tiny pieces, but I just dont think it would be the smartest decision given out current status and our objectives.

Other than that :goodpost:

 

[VanillaGorilla]

As far as the mosques, I think it was smart not to bomb the Mosque, b/c that would really piss people off and if our objective is to keep the country as passive as possible (note: as) until we get the hell out bombing a mosque would be akin to poking a beehive with a stick and not intending on poisoning the whole hive when they get pissed at us. I would like to bomb the mosques and blow Al-Sadr into tiny pieces, but I just dont think it would be the smartest decision given out current status and our objectives.

They are people who will probably up rise at some time in the future anyway. IMO it's better to kill the hive then let a few bees come out and sting you from time to time and then there is the problem of disturbing them in the future. If we are going to stay you need a stable Iraq. There is also our solders safety to consider. If people are shooting at up from a mosque I would rather blow it up than have our guys trading shots with them.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

They are people who will probably up rise at some time in the future anyway. IMO it's better to kill the hive then let a few bees come out and sting you from time to time and then there is the problem of disturbing them in the future. If we are going to stay you need a stable Iraq. There is also our solders safety to consider. If people are shooting at up from a mosque I would rather blow it up than have our guys trading shots with them.

See, if we were to kill them all, I don't see the problem. But due to some damn pussy-footin hippies our soldiers don't have that option. We've got too much in our way to effectively deal with the reaction we would get from bombing a mosque. But, that's just MHO.

I'd much rather blow them up than have a soldiers trade shots, I just don't think we have that option, so when it comes to a single Mosque, I don't think it's going to be worth it and would probably be detrimental.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'd much rather blow them up than have a soldiers trade shots, I just don't think we have that option, so when it comes to a single Mosque, I don't think it's going to be worth it and would probably be detrimental.

The problem is if you leave them alone the threat is still there in the future, thus hurts the long term stability of Iraq. If you get a number of Iraqis who have an uprising because we bombed a mosque that had terrorists shooting at us, we kill them all and have less of a problem with the stability of Iraq. It's better to take care of the problem now and safer for our troops.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

The problem is if you leave them alone the threat is still there in the future, thus hurts the long term stability of Iraq. If you get a number of Iraqis who have an uprising because we bombed a mosque that had terrorists shooting at us, we kill them all and have less of a problem with the stability of Iraq. It's better to take care of the problem now and safer for our troops.

I'll hold fast to my opinion simply because if we were to blow that mosque up we'd have to be willing to kill people who were not our enemies only the moment before the bombing. Those who were not aggressive toward us, would then fall for the America hates Muslims rhetoric and may go out an join the ranks of the terrorists who are trying to kill as many Americans as possible. If they see our war as an attack on their religion that gives credibility to the douche bag terrorists who say we're muslim hating infidels. You've got to think about it this way...we don't have any way of justifying our moves there. They're only means of news is Al Jazeera, etc...they would see us bombing a mosque as an attack on islam.

 

[Biggs]

I don't agree with a lot of what's being said around here but that's fine, wanted to say I think that last bit was well said Kwyck.

:goodpost:

 

[CEDeoudes59]

How about Kerry telling the nation Cheney's daughter is a lesbian - to try and embarrass Bush/Cheney

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'll hold fast to my opinion simply because if we were to blow that mosque up we'd have to be willing to kill people who were not our enemies only the moment before the bombing. Those who were not aggressive toward us, would then fall for the America hates Muslims rhetoric and may go out an join the ranks of the terrorists who are trying to kill as many Americans as possible.

I am not saying seek out and blow up all mosques. What I am saying is if a group of terrorist are all occupying a mosque instead of trading shots with them we should blow it up. The other problem is if we don't do that what are the terrorists going to do? They are all going to go to the mosques because they know we won't do anything. Imagine how past wars would have turn out if we followed the same protocol. You would have nazis turning every church in Europe into a battle station. You can't fight a war like that.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I am not saying seek out and blow up all mosques. What I am saying is if a group of terrorist are all occupying a mosque instead of trading shots with them we should blow it up. The other problem is if we don't do that what are the terrorists going to do? They are all going to go to the mosques because they know we won't do anything. Imagine how past wars would have turn out if we followed the same protocol. You would have nazis turning every church in Europe into a battle station. You can't fight a war like that.

I see where you're coming from; maybe you're right. Maybe if we blew up one mosque because terrorists were in it, the citizens would say "f*ck you terrorist, get out of our mosques!". This is just one of those things I guess. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If we don't bomb, we get shot at like ducks; if we bomb it, we'll probably have more people wanting to kill us.

 

[Matthew D]

Didn't work during Vietnam and I don't think it would work now..

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I see where you're coming from; maybe you're right. Maybe if we blew up one mosque because terrorists were in it, the citizens would say "f*ck you terrorist, get out of our mosques!". This is just one of those things I guess. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If we don't bomb, we get shot at like ducks; if we bomb it, we'll probably have more people wanting to kill us.

If you are at war with a country and you have a absolutely never fire on civilian policy, what is the first thing the enemy is going to do? They will have their solders put on civilian clothes and mix them into the population. It's the same principle with the mosques. They are so afraid of creating a martyr with some of the rules that what they end up doing is elevating someone that should be dead to a hero level. On top of that we aren't very popular in the middle east to begin with.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

If you are at war with a country and you have a absolutely never fire on civilian policy, what is the first thing the enemy is going to do? They will have their solders put on civilian clothes and mix them into the population. It's the same principle with the mosques. They are so afraid of creating a martyr with some of the rules that what they end up doing is elevating someone that should be dead to a hero level. On top of that we aren't very popular in the middle east to begin with.

We're already getting shot at by "civilians" and Al-Sadr is a hero to some...

I guess my optimism about Iraq just keeps me from thinking, unlike North Vietnam, that we should just mow them down. I'd like a more aggressive stance than we're taking now, but I still don't see anything wrong with them being careful with religious matters; especially since religion is to blame for the violence in the first place (well, mostly anyway; infidels on muslim soil, remember?) edit: then again, maybe that whole infidels thing is just another reason to bomb 'em, eh lol