Originally Posted By ecdc >>As most here know I voted for Bush in 2004. I didn't like much of what he stood for, but I thought he would be best at keeping us safe and felt that trumped anything else.<< And again, we've been through this. There's absolutely no evidence that the steps Bush has taken were unique from what other President's might take. It's this naive view that John Kerry, someone who served in the military, would've been soft on terrorism. There's no evidence for it, apart from conservative fantasy. >>Unlike most on the board I STILL think Iraq was the right thing to do. I believe that part of the reason we have not had another terrorist attack on the homeland is that al Qaeda can now kill Americans 500-1,000 miles or less from Syria, Iran or Afghanistan which is a helluva lot easier than trying to kill them in the United States.<< But that's not what we were told. I can't fathom sacrificing our young men and women by baiting terrorists so that we can grow fat in the U.S. and not sacrifice a damn thing, which is exactly what you and I have done for the last 5 years this war has been fought. Furthermore, going to Iraq created more terrorists to fight, not less. The guys you keep voting for created this problem, and now you act as if they're somehow independent of it. >>I also believe that bin Laden is smart enough to know that if there were another attack on the homeland we would hunt his sorry ass down no matter what other countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan and perhaps Russia) we pissed off in the process. It is pretty clear by now that bin Laden has no interest in being a martyr. I don't know that it is a bad strategy to keep the SOB contained in the caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.<< You can believe all you like that bin Laden is smart enough to know we would hunt him down. But he wasn't smart enough to know it the first time he attacked us? He thought we'd just give him a pass, did he? This is some of the worst logic I've ever seen employed. It essentially says Bush is a genius for failing to catch the guy who attacked us. Yes, it was about as brilliant as McCain picking Palin. But only a handful of people see the genius that the rest of us think is really stupid. That's a total myth. How can you possibly suggest that it's a good thing that bin Laden is still alive? We took our eye off the ball with Iraq and now he's been free longer than Adolf Hitler following the invasion of Poland. That's a failure, RT, not a success, no matter how the right tries to spin it. It's not pretty clear at all that bin Laden has no interest in being a martyr. >>Now I do believe that the war has been bungled horribly by the Bush administration and it has cost far more in lives and dollars than it ever should have. That is because we had idiots like Rumsfeld and Cheney running the war and they wanted to try and fight a war on the cheap. McCain was opposed to that from day one. If we had gone in to Iraq with the number of boots on the ground that McCain wanted instead of what Rumsfeld wanted, we would have been in and out of there inside of two years.<< And what did McCain do about it? Nothing. Instead, he turned into Bush to whore himself out to the far right. And now you're just hoping he won't really be like that when he gets in office. You believe the war's been bungled, that men and women have died needlessly. That's no small thing. But apparently it's enough to keep the same party in power. >>We would have had enough troops there to prevent the rampant lawlessness that occurred after the fall of Baghdad. We would have prevented the destruction of infrastructure that occurred because we didn't have enough troops to prevent it. We would have prevented the turn to al Qaeda when Iraqis saw that they appeared to have more power than we did.<< This continues the same absurd nonsense that the surge is working. But more cops on the beat, and violence will go down, temporarily. A political solution is needed and we still don't have one. It also ignores that Sunni militias have been bribed to stop fighting. We want to wrap ourselves in the flag and say it's all going to plan. That's just not the case at all. >>The fight in Iraq HAS been a righteous fight and one well worth completing. It would be a horrible waste of the lives lost and the dollars spent if we just pulled out as Obama wants. Remember "Peace with Honor" in Vietnam? There was no such thing. The U.S. military took an enormous hit to its prestige and its value as a deterrent for 15 years afterwards. It wasn't until Gulf War One that our armed forces got their mojo back. A military that no one fears is absolutely worthless.<< It's already a horrible waste of lives and dollars, RT. The idea that more lives and more dollars will fix that is more than absurd, it's downright offensive. It's funny that you mention Vietnam. There was no peace with honor because it was impossible. Like the arrogant Americans we always seem to be, we went to a country on false pretenses over paranoia that turned out to be complete idiocy. Ho Chi Minh was a patriot first, a communist second. Every single Vietnam expert was saying in the 1950s and 60s it was a huge mistake. But since when have we ever let the facts stop us. We went to a country where they have temples to heroes who fought 1500 years ago. We went to a place where every man, woman, and child would have died before they let us win. And today, ignorant as ever of our history, even our recent history, people perpetuate this falsehood that we just lost Vietnam because we didn't fight hard enough. It's not a righteous fight at all. It's a total disaster that's disgraced our nation. All of this could have been avoided if we'd never gone. Again, let's not pretend like we just stumbled on this situation and now we have to stay to save our reputation. We created the mess. Your guys created the mess. They have blood on their hands. >>So yes, Obama scares me. He would either not use the military when required, or he would try to fight a war on the cheap like Rumsfeld. You can tell by the massive cuts he proposes in military spending that that he would be even worse than Rumsfeld when it comes to attempting to fight a war on the cheap.<< You have absolutely no evidence of that. None. Zip. It's all a fantasy meant to justify your decision to support McCain. I have no reason to believe, beyond conservative myths, that Obama wouldn't defend our nation. I have good reason to believe he wouldn't get our young men and women killed in an unnecessary war. >>If I currently had a child in the military I would want to be damned sure that the military was given the resources and the POLICY needed to WIN any conflict. Would I want to lose my child in a war? Hell no. Who would? But some wars must be fought, and some parent’s kids will die. And if that occurs, I want to make DAMNED SURE they don’t die in vain.<< They've already died in vain. I know it's not the politically correct thing to say. We're all supposed to pretend like the troops are engaged in a noble cause because we love them. But they're not. It's a total waste and a total waste of lives. Inventing notions out of whole cloth about bin Laden, about Iraq, about American history, and about Barack Obama doesn't change that one bit.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As most here know I voted for Bush in 2004. I didn't like much of what he stood for, but I thought he would be best at keeping us safe and felt that trumped anything else.*** Since you didn't reply the first time, I have to ask again why a guy from a rural area who is more likely to be struck by lightening than effected by a terrorist attack have such concern for these issues? As you yourself said, you'd save a lot of money under the Obama tax plan. You supported the guy in the past. You made a gigantic mistake voting for Bush in 04, why repeat the same error for the same reasons? ***al Qaeda can now kill Americans 500-1,000 miles or less from Syria, Iran or Afghanistan*** Lovely sentiment. So essentially you figure they're offering up our soldiers as human shields so the villains can get their pound of flesh and leave us civilians alone..and you're OKAY with that? Sometimes I wonder about you, RoadTrip. Bizarre line of thinking right there.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And while we're on the subject, why is a guy from rural Missouri so concerned with national defense? The probability that any incursion will affect you is nil.>> I don't know. I guess the thought of 50 thousand or so dead in New York City or Washington DC bums me out a little bit. Go figure. Besides that, if I do want to consider self-interest, Branson is only 170 miles away from a pretty major military target; Whiteman Air force base near Knob Noster, MO (hey, I don't name these towns). <<Whiteman is the home of the 509th Bomb Wing, which operates and maintains the Air Force's premier weapon system, the B-2 bomber. Whiteman is also the home of the 442nd Fighter Wing, an Air Force Reserve Command unit that flies the A-10 Thunderbolt II, as well as the Missouri Army National Guard 1-135th Aviation Battalion, which flies the AH-64 Apache helicopter. The Navy Reserve Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 114 also operates from Whiteman. Their mission is to provide surveillance, intelligence and force protection measures for naval assets>> Source: <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.whiteman.af.mil/" target="_blank">http://usmilitary.about.com/gi....af.mil/</a> Don't worry about it though. I wouldn't expect you to be all that informed about U.S. stuff seeing as how you live in Japan and all...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can believe all you like that bin Laden is smart enough to know we would hunt him down. But he wasn't smart enough to know it the first time he attacked us? He thought we'd just give him a pass, did he? This is some of the worst logic I've ever seen employed.>> Well, sorry but that is the truth. Bin Laden publicly mocked the U.S. as not having the courage to fight against his Mujahideen. I'm sure we gave him that opinion by not doing much to hunt him down and kill him during 20 years of attacks against U.S. interests. I certainly give props to my hero, Bill Clinton, for trying to take the SOB out with cruise missiles. Unfortunately, that was the only action we ever took against him during those 20 years. If nothing else, I don't think bin Laden sees us as a paper tiger anymore.
Originally Posted By mele Except we're getting weaker and weaker everyday. I think this was the plan all along.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Don't worry about it though. I wouldn't expect you to be all that informed about U.S. stuff seeing as how you live in Japan and all...*** Irrelevent. In any case, I'm (of course) concerned too about the possibility of hostilities in America. I have family there, after all, and I spend a good deal of time there in any case. I just wonder why it's practically the only issue you seem concerned about. AND, at the same time, you seem to be simply making up reasons why that means you should vote GOP. As ECDC said, you really think Kerry (a decorated veteran) would be soft on terror? I suppose if your idea of that means no torture and actually affording criminals basic rights such as no indefinite incarceration without a trial, then McCain really is your man. Seems pretty un-American to me though.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip See, I really was better off going with the economic self-interest shit. At least you guys understood that. We have a fundamentally different view of the world and what it takes to keep us safe. You can dump on me and I can dump on you and it makes no difference. We are coming at this from a viewpoint that differs by 180 degrees. I've always (as I've said here many times) considered myself as a democratic hawk. That just doesn't work in this election like it did in the past. There is absolutely no way that Obama and I agree on anything regarding defense. That starts with his pride in voting against our action in Iraq when most every other democrat voted for it. He wears that as a badge of honor. I see it as a badge of shame. There is just no way I can reconcile myself to his views about defense no matter how much I may like his positions in other areas. I know you don’t agree with that. I know you don’t understand it. But I don’t care. We just disagree on this one… nothing more; nothing less.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>See, I really was better off going with the economic self-interest ****. At least you guys understood that.<< And now we're stupid. Classy. What's this "going with" garbage anyway? Can't make up your mind? Or are you just making stuff up because you really have no idea why you've decided what you have (other than spending a lot of time chatting with bigots...but you wouldn't want to think you've been brainwashed of course!).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I suppose if your idea of that means no torture and actually affording criminals basic rights such as no indefinite incarceration without a trial, then McCain really is your man.>> You really should do a better job of keeping up on this stuff. McCain has STRONGLY opposed the Bush administration of the issue of torture and feels it should be absolutely forbidden in all cases. He also feels that the stuff the Bush administration says was not torture was indeed torture. If you don't know something as basic about McCain as that, what the hell DO you know??
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I just wonder why it's practically the only issue you seem concerned about. AND, at the same time, you seem to be simply making up reasons why that means you should vote GOP.>> It is the same reason I gave as the reason for my vote four years ago. How on earth can you say I am not consistent? You can disagree with the importance I place on it, and that is fine. I disagree with you too. But there is no way in hell you can claim I'm scrambling for reasons to defend my choice when it is EXACTLY the same reason I voted the way I did four years ago.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But there is no way in hell you can claim I'm scrambling for reasons to defend my choice*** I didn't say you were scrambling for reasons, I said you were making them up. ***when it is EXACTLY the same reason I voted the way I did four years ago*** Something to be proud of. <--rolls eyes.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You really should do a better job of keeping up on this stuff. McCain has STRONGLY opposed the Bush administration of the issue of torture and feels it should be absolutely forbidden in all cases. He also feels that the stuff the Bush administration says was not torture was indeed torture.*** And then he voted against banning it. <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080214_mccain_votes_against_torture_ban/" target="_blank">http://www.truthdig.com/eartot...ure_ban/</a> ***If you don't know something as basic about McCain as that, what the hell DO you know??*** Right back at ya.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip OK. If it makes you happy, I just like McCain because I am under some illusion that he will save me some money on taxes. As far as the other crap goes; your OPINION is no better than my OPINION, and that is the #1 thing I find offensive about LP. Whether it is a discussion about politics or Epcot changes or the freaking California Adventure, there is a "right opinion" and a "wrong opinion"; and God help you if you have the "wrong opinion". Well screw you. I don't buy in to the LP group think. At times it is good to actually have an original thought.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***your OPINION is no better than my OPINION*** Of course. Unless it runs counter to actual facts, as did your claim about McCain on torture. You can't just make stuff up. Not in the information age, at least. ***that is the #1 thing I find offensive about LP*** Why continue to post, then? Just for the sake of antagonizing? Sure seems that way, since you make up one position after another seemingly just to tick people off. And when people actually try and converse with you about your oftentimes confusing statements, you get belligerent. "at least you guys understood that" "well screw you" Like that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Right back at ya.>> Did you read the article? McCain clearly states that he did not support the administration’s support of torture: <<This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact. In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.” >> McCain’s only objection to the bill is that it would require that the CIA operate under the same intelligence constraints as the regular services and he did not support that. On the other hand, he absolutely did not support CIA torture either. <<In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.>> All information sourced from X's link.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<at least you guys understood that" "well screw you" Like that.>> Sorry. You are an obnoxious argumentative and degrading poopie butt. I am certainly not the first person to say that. I'm just the first person to say that and still stick around. You have blasted me on a number of topics, many of them far removed from politics. You just like shooting at the big red target on my ass. The only thing that surprises me is that you think it is such a nice ass to shoot at. Oh well. My wife thinks that too. Blast away. Sometimes it hurts so good... ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Just for the sake of antagonizing? Sure seems that way, since you make up one position after another seemingly just to tick people off.>> No, not just to antagonize. At times to present an alternative point of view. You guys have driven off all the REAL conservatives with your constant abuse. Every once and again you need to be reminded that there are other points of view out there. Just like many of us think Disney's California Adventure is a pretty fine park. I'll never totally bullshit you. I did indeed vote for Bush in 2004, and I do indeed intend to vote for McCain in 2008. Other than that? It's the freaking Internet. Buyer beware. You need to determine what I'm serious about and what I'm not. It really isn't that tough. Any moderately intelligent 6th grader could go through my posts and tell which ones I was serious about and which ones I was just having a little bit of fun. Some get me. Some don't. That's OK. I don't need to be liked by everyone. I don't need to be liked by anyone. It all kind of started with the Branson boards. I realized I really didn't give a shit what anyone on the Internet thought of me. It was a very liberating experience. I can say what I want when I want. At times it is true belief. At times it is entertainment. All of the time, I have fun.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I am certainly not the first person to say that. I'm just the first person to say that and still stick around.*** That's the baffling part though. You stick around. Even after saying that LP posters are offensive to you. Gotta wonder why (not that I'd ever accuse you of being a troll or anything ). Anyway, on your quotes about..fact is he still voted it down. Making excuses for bad choices is a favorite pastime for McCain. This is no different.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You guys have driven off all the REAL conservatives with your constant abuse.*** They'll be back if/when McCain gets another bump in the polls. Just like last time. And if not, they'll be back in January to complain about every breath Obama takes.
Originally Posted By mele Back to the OP...you know, I went to church for decades and never heard anyone praying to be protected against witches. That really is just plain bizarre. Really, are witches really a huge problem in America? Or anywhere? Are we really okay with large church congregations praying against other religions? How is that not offensive? Prayers for protection against witches? Really? In the 21st century? But the most offensive thing, to me, is how the minister prays to God to provide funds for her campaign. How can people think this is appropriate is beyond me. A prime example of why I no longer go to church.
