Here's a beaut':

That oughta motivate the hell out of those guys playing in the sand. :rolleyes: "What the hell are we doing here if my Commander in Chief doesn't think we can win?"

However, that's sure gotta encourage al Qaeda, knowing they're going to win.

And how many parts of the world are terrorists now acceptable?

Hang on everyone, here comes the spin!
Whhheeeeeeeeeeeee!

LOL. Talk about trying to create a controversy over nothing...

The war on terror is a broad brush stroke that includes specific campaigns - such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have won both the specific campaigns, but the war against terrorism of all shapes and sizes is not one that can be 'won' in that same sense. It's like asking if we can win the war against 'evil'...

He was speaking to the threat of terrorism as an idea--not a group of people that might be inclined to carry ir out. How do you stop an idea?

I bet Jean-Paul Kerrie` can and will if he thinks it will get him elected promise that the idea of another act of terrorism will not be hatched or attempted to be carried out.

As stated before, you've got to love a guy that always tells you what you want to hear.
------------------------------------------------------------

As long as we're posting Bushisms--I liked this one he voiced recently:

"If you don't agree or like my opponents position on a given issue---you may have just caught him on the wrong day."--GW

Myself, the Stryker Combat Team, and the Iraqi populace are having a good chuckle out of that one.

Come on, you guys can do better than that. Those are the expected apologetic spins. Jeez, use some imagination. :rolleyes: Since Bouche waged "war on terra," are you telling us that this man starts wars he knows he can't win?

Funny that it was less than 18 months ago when us "enlightened" ones tried to point out you couldn't win a "war on terror," we were branded as traitors and America-haters.

We're still missing input from a couple of the most typical spinners, so I'm still hanging on.

You can play with the words and get what you want out of it. Either side.


You cannot defeat an idology with military tactics unless you are willing to exterminate the participants. We can just make it hard on them to conduct business and hopefully we will see less of it. It's too easy in a free society to operate. It has been speculated on more than once that the US constitution will have to be revised to stop them. So the real war may be just around the corner.

Play with the words all you like, but Bouche invaded a country in the name of "The War on Terror," a war that he has now admitted we can't win.

Yeah, what a leader. :rolleyes:

You don't imagine he's simply changing his tune to entice the moderates and swing voters, do you? Maybe reacting to some sensing group or poll? He isn't flip-flopping because it's what some needed voters want to hear, is he?

Harley,

Risk prevention is additive. That means everything that you do to prevent risk mathmatically reduces that risks potential. So reducing the likely hood that a madman will provide aid to fundemental Islam is /was and always will be the right thing to do. Regardless of how you " feel" about it is a mathmatical certainty. We should have learned that in Vietnam and proven years later with the fall off the USSR. Now we have to take additive prevention in several other countries. How we do it remains to be seen.

You must be using Bouche's fuzzy math and forgot to carry the one. You seem to neglect the fact that Bouche's subtraction of Saddam has multiplied the threat of terrorist actions against American interests exponentially.

But it must have a denominator of zero and won't factor because Bouche says we can't win the war on terror.

"Since Bouche waged "war on terra," are you telling us that this man starts wars he knows he can't win?"

Keep grasping at nothing if you must. Iraq has a few hot spots left - but the newly freed Iraqi people and their new army are taking care of those hot spots quickly - with the help of some US forces.

The war with Iraq\Sadamm was only a part of the war on terrorism. Not too hard of a concept to grasp - well, for most of us anyway...

Face it, Saddam is gone and Iraq is free. The battle with terrorists will continue - but they will find fewer and fewer willing to hide them, feed them, support them, etc.

"You seem to neglect the fact that Bouche's subtraction of Saddam has multiplied the threat of terrorist actions against American interests exponentially."


And your proof of that is???? Can't be the increased attacks on our American homeland....

-----------------------------------------------------------

Goharley,

So what's the alternative--converting to Islam and putting Aunty M in a Berka?

The drive-threw/sit-com mentality that wants all problems solved and neatly tied up and brought to heart- warming conclusion in 22 minutes--NEWSFLASH: It's not going to happen!

If elected in November, what will John Kerry do differently in Iraq that will make the region safer and bring our troops home while keeping us safe from the idea that Islamic extremists have had to kill non-Muslims for years?

Finally, would the world or even just the United States be safer if we withdrawled US troops from Iraq entirely and restored Saddam to power in Iraq?

These words aren't my own, but I agree with the sentement:

A STRONGER AMERICA

At Kerry rallies they have a banner that says "A Stronger America." How do you make America stronger by giving the United Nations veto power over U.S. troop deployments? How do you make America stronger by pandering to Euroweenies who want to see their economic status improved by weakening America? How do you make America stronger by voting against virtually every weapons system that is being used today in our fight against Islamic terrorism? How do you make American stronger by reducing our intelligence budget? How do you make America stronger by pushing a hideously flawed global climate treaty that would cripple American industry?

Inquiring minds, and all that ...

Harley,

You say multiplied I say prove it. Is the number of supporters of "radical Islam" 1% 5% 15% of the Billion or so Muslims around the world? They where there, just in the background now they are out in the open. Again it's your felling about what is happening not what is actually happening.

How do you make America stronger by having the 4th most Dovish voting record in the senate over your career? Maybe he thinks the enemy will like him much more.

PP, Elvis - Interviews with Colin Powell, and a report by the Center for Strategic Studies. Go google, young men.

Oh, and by the way:
You got that way backwards. Trust me.

Krusty - That was merely a "we told you so." And if you want to know about making America stronger, ask Kerry. He's the one making the claims. However, we've already seen what the present administration has done to the strength of America.

But keep the spin comin' guys, the rides getting fun.

Kerry says he can win the war on terror now....Obvious thoughtless retort to the president's comments about "winning" the war on terror. Kerry the pacifist? the appeaser? the flip flopper? Win a war? NOT

It was his ilk with their failed appeasing ideals that gave the terrorists strength and green lights to attack over and over again. It was Kerry and his crowd of anti war weaklings that rolled out the welcome mat for the killers who attacked on 9/11....With Kerry in office I would expect the terrorists to regroup and attack again with much more confidence.

Thank God George Bush is president.

That's exactly what bin Laden is thinking. Bouche keeps sending fresh troops for al Qaeda to kill, has told the world we can't win the war on terror, and is probably bin Laden's best recruiter.

Oh wait, Bouche now says we can win the war. Ooops, flip-flip. Had to react to public opinion again.

Oh, and those clowns that were in power for over 10 years and allowed the 9/11 tragedy- you may recognize them as the Republican controlled Congress.

Wonderful leadership.

"That's exactly what bin Laden is thinking. Bouche keeps sending fresh troops for al Qaeda to kill. "

Well lets see here Clinton policy to make terrorism a crime costs us 3000 lives and Bushes policy to stop it has cost us 1000 . 3 to 1 interesting math there Harley to say that 1000 is worse than 3000.

BTW I thought the libs where maintaining that Al Queda had fewer than 100 in Iraq? Now you have them killing all of our troops.

Man, you're batting awful today. Wrong on all accounts.

In your world we have contributed 1000 dead for something completely unrelated to the 3000. More of the Bouche fuzzy math?

Although Clinton is your favorite scape-goat and diversionary tactic, one; he's not running for reelection (already got that t-shirt), and two; the 9/11 report exonerates his policy from blame. Not to mention, the Republican controlled Congress presented the new laws to the president and he either vetoed or signed.

Besides, I'm not really sure how American law leads to the 9/11 attacks in your black and white world.

Finally, if you go back and check you'll find that it was this administration and it's flock that claimed there was only about 500 al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. It wasn't until we killed about 600 that someone finally stepped back and said, "Heeeeyyyy, wait a second..."

I'm sure if Osama bin Laden is alive and could somehow vote absentee ballot in the upcoming presidential election, he'd vote for John Kerry.

John Kerry is the one who has said if elected,"he can fight a more sensitive war on terrror."

John Kerry is the one who has said if elected he will withdraw a significant amount of troops from the Middle East in 6 months.

John Kerry is the one that has stabbed Vietnem veterans in the back for the last 33 years by saying they were on a daily basis, "RAPISTS and BABY KILLERS" without ever wittnessing a single atrocitie. In doing this he demoralized the armed forces and our nation.

John Kerry is the one that while still a member of the US armed forces went abroad (with out US government permission) to a foriegn country to talk to representatives of our enemy and came back to the US and advocated for the enemies demands on their behalf.

John Kerry is the on who has voted time and again to cut defense and intellegence gathering budgets--but voted to increase funding to the UN.

If they could, why wouldn't Osama bin Laden or his henchmen vote for John Kerry?

You're sure? Have the two of you been having long, deep chats?

Originally posted by Dan S.:

I'm sure if Osama bin Laden is alive and could somehow vote absentee ballot in the upcoming presidential election, he'd vote for John Kerry.--RB

You're sure? Have the two of you been having long, deep chats?--DanS
-----------------------------------------------------------

DanS,

I gave 6 logical reasons why OBL would vote (if he could) for Kerry to back up my assertion.

Can you list 6 logical reasons why OBL wouldn't vote for Kerry?

"Besides, I'm not really sure how American law leads to the 9/11 attacks in your black and white world."

Clinton doctrine stopped the CIA and FBI from investigating and pursuing terrorists and their activities until they comitted a crime. Essentially giving them a free shot. Same application of the law used on citizens. We cannot be arrested or detained until we comit a crime. It's well documented in the 911 report and has been widely discussed for years. There is a great PBS frontline documentary on it's impact on 911.

Actually, I can't think of ONE reason why OBL would vote at all. He's not exactly a huge proponent of Democracy if you know what I mean.

No, you listed 6 statements that are either untrue, misconstrued, taken out of context, or emotionally deriven.

Successful commanders fight a sensitive war by being cognizant of what's happening on the battle field. They don't simply "stay the course" when it's obvious the course isn't working. Binny wouldn't like someone that's sensitive to the battlefield.

Kerry said he'd work with other nations to replace our troops, (and it was more like 8 months) thus putting more of the burden on our allies. I'm guessing Binny would rather have American targets.

Kerry told Congress during his testimony that he was relating interviews of atrocities by other veterans. He never claimed to witness them first hand. No one can prove that his testimony demoralized the entire nation. However, it can be better argued that his testimony resulted in America pulling its troops from Vietnam and saving the lives of thousands of Americans. It was the current administration's policies and lack of leadership that caused the Armed Forces demoralization during that period. bin Laden doesn't care about that stuff anyway.

Kerry and McCain went as an envoy to reestablish diplomatic relations in order to repatriate MIA remains. You should probably let some of the families whose loved one's remains have been returned how disgusted you are about that. Not to mention the many vets that have since returned as a form of mental therapy and closure. Why have all that when we can simply continue to hate an entire country? :rolleyes: I doubt bin Laden cares about that issue either.

Kerry voted against outdated weapons systems in favor of new ones. He actually voted for some of the largest defesne and intelligence budgets in US history. Cheney voted to slash defense spending more than Kerry. Bush I slashed the intelligence budget. Bouche II has cut funding for veterans. Now that's something Binny is interested in.

So it still looks to me like bin Laden will be casting his vote for Bouche & Co. - if he could.

"Successful commanders fight a sensitive war by being cognizant of what's happening on the battle field. They don't simply "stay the course" when it's obvious the course isn't working. "

like the infamous highway of death in the gulf war. Powell was concerned about how decimating the Iraqi army would play in the Arab world so he and Schwarzkopf talked Bush into calling the whole thing off. What they got was an emboldened Saddam who whacked 300k Shia and Kurds, an iraqi army that we would have to deal with another day and an Arab world that danced in the streets on 9-11. Turns out that had they stayed the course we would not be discussing Iraq today.

The way your rewrite history is so entertaining, and kinda cute at times.

The "course" was never to overthrow Saddam's regime in '91. Bush I could not justify it to the rest of the world.

It was hoped that the people of Iraq would effect the regime change.
It is a well known fact that Saddam was crying in his bunker at the devastation of his Army. Had we wiped that army out he would have been over thrown. Instead we stopped and he jumped at the chance to negotiate a settlement. One that Schwarzkopf Botched by allowing Sadam to use his Army north of a line in the Sand. A simple stupid and well noted mistake today.Tthat army then was used to crush by murder all of the opposition to his regime inside Iraq in the next 30 days while the coalition sat back and watched.

Is it not true in the history of warfare that no quarter be given until it is asked?

Please dispute these facts if you can.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Reuters) - One day after saying the war on terror could not be won, President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday sought to calm a political storm by asserting he had been less than articulate and that America would prevail.


Like I said 2 years ago, stupid is , stupid does.
Can he articulate or is he a flip flopper like the rest of the politicians. He's yale degree he worked so hard at getting sure preveils every day when he speaks. Or was it a gentlemans degree after all ?

"He's yale degree he worked so hard at getting sure preveils every day when he speaks."

I always love it when someone uses a well formed sentence like this to bash someone else for not being articulate

Retort to goharley
------------------------------------------------------------

I gave 6 logical reasons why OBL would vote (if he could) for Kerry--RB

No, you listed 6 statements that are either untrue, misconstrued, taken out of context, or emotionally deriven.--GH
------------------------------------------------------------
"untrue, misconstructed, taken out of context or emotionally driven"----finally, something goharley knows something about.--RB


Kerry said he'd work with other nations to replace our troops, (and it was more like 8 months) thus putting more of the burden on our allies.--GH

What troops--the French? Don't hold your breath. This is the same hypocrit that when Saddam invaded Kuwait and Bush 41 went to the UN and built the biggest coalition of nations in the history of the world---Still voted against giving the president the authority to send troops to stop Saddam.--RB
------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry told Congress during his testimony that he was relating interviews of atrocities by other veterans. He never claimed to witness them first hand.--GH

That's my point exactly! If you hadn't wittnessed him doing anything wrong---would you go before the entire world and call your brother a "RAPIST and BABY KILLER"? If you say you would, why?--RB
------------------------------------------------------------
No one can prove that his testimony demoralized the entire nation. However, it can be better argued that his testimony resulted in America pulling its troops from Vietnam and saving the lives of thousands of Americans. --GH

That is speculation at best--many Vietnam veterans and POW's feel that Kerry's VVAW lies and actions cost American lives and prolonged the war. His actions and lies about Winter Soldier investigations and the VVAW activities contributed to the death of an estimated 2.5-3.5 MILLION people that were killed by the Viet Cong after we withdrew from SE Asia.--RB
------------------------------------------------------------
It was the current administration's policies and lack of leadership that caused the Armed Forces demoralization during that period.---GH

Any objective student history would see it was obvious that Johnson did more to make a difficult Vietnam situation much worse and demoralize troops and the nation than Nixon did.--RB
------------------------------------------------------------

bin Laden doesn't care about that stuff anyway.--GH

OBL is a student of history--of course he does--RB.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kerry and McCain went as an envoy to reestablish diplomatic relations in order to repatriate MIA remains.--GH

When I said he (sKerry) met with the enemy(without US government permission)--I was referencing the 1970 meeting in Paris were Kerry had met with Madame Binh (Viet Cong delegate) and other North Vietnamese communist party reprsentatives (while still a member of US armed forces) and accepted a 7 point proposal that required the US to surrender and withdraw from Vietnam. Kerry later urged Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal. If you don't believe me look it up.--RB
------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt bin Laden cares about that issue either.--GH

What's the old saying, "if you don't understand history--you're bound to.........?"--RB
-----------------------------------------------------------

So it still looks to me like bin Laden will be casting his vote for Bouche & Co. - if he could. --GH

I would be very surprised if the rock OBL is hiding under doesn't have a Kerry/Edwards--"For a stronger America" sticker on it.--RB

Okay, since you only made a couple of plausible points out of all that gibberish, let's take a look at them, shall we?

First of all, that "brother" crap is so passe cliche.
It is the duty of a soldier to report to his superiors war crimes that are being committed. It was Kerry's duty to report to Congress what he'd learned from interviewing other vets. Again, he didn't say every veteran was guilty, he testified as to what he'd learned from other vets.

That isn't even logical. The testimony sped up the removal of troops from SE Asia. Logic dictates that the longer troops are in country, more die. Ergo, the sooner they are removed, the less die. Kinda like economics 101.

Talk about massive speculative hyperbole. I'm sure you have credible evidence to support that Kerry's testimony before Congress resulted in millions of deaths in SE Asia. :rolleyes:

I made no distinction between the two, and personally feel that they were both equally corrupt and damaging to America. Wait a minute, wasn't Johnson from Texas, too? Hmmmmm.

No, it's not true, but I'm sure it sounded great in that novel from which you plucked it.

As far as Schwarzkopf is concerned, he made the mistake of letting the Iraqi's maintain open airspace, which they used (along with weapons supplied by Rumsfeld) to squash an uprising of Shiites and Kurds that Bush I encouraged. Seems Bush didn't plan on how to help them overthrow Saddam once they started. Something about the Bush family and inability to plan. Hey, wasn't Cheney the Sec of Def then, too? Imagine that; gang's all here.

"No, it's not true, but I'm sure it sounded great in that novel from which you plucked it."

It absolultely is true and it is well recorded in history. Given the ability in that scenario any army would have pursued the enemy until surrender. We should have done the same as history has now proven. And we should do such in the future as current conflicts are proving.

Retort to goharley's retort


First of all, that "brother" crap is so passe cliche.
It is the duty of a soldier to report to his superiors war crimes that are being committed. It was Kerry's duty to report to Congress what he'd learned from interviewing other vets. Again, he didn't say every veteran was guilty, he testified as to what he'd learned from other vets.--GH


So in other words if someone makes up something scathing about you (without any first hand knowledge) and attempts to discredit, humiliate and brand you as something you're not to the whole world for 30+ years, that's OK with you?--RB
-----------------------------------------------------------

That isn't even logical. The testimony sped up the removal of troops from SE Asia. Logic dictates that the longer troops are in country, more die. Ergo, the sooner they are removed, the less die. Kinda like economics 101.--Gh

It's complelety logical--Hanoi John's lies led us to slowly withdraw troops and not support the ones in the field--if we had pursued an all or nothing policy and supported the soldiers
and allowed them to win--they would have--they never lost a single battle in Vietnam--Hanoi John lies and back-stabbing helped to defeat them at home (both in Vietnam and when they returned).
------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about massive speculative hyperbole. I'm sure you have credible evidence to support that Kerry's testimony before Congress resulted in millions of deaths in SE Asia. :rolleyes: --GH
------------------------------------------------------------

I do--the tribute to Hanoi John in a Ho Chi Minh city communist museum, that says that his (Hanoi John) and other anti-war activists like Hanoi Jane led to their total communist victory in Vietnam.

It's well documented (go rent "The Killing Fields" or read the book that inspired the movie) that 2.5 MILLION Cambodians and 1-1.5 MILLION South Vietnamese were murdered after we withdrew from SE Asia.--RB

Quite the opposite. History is filled with battles of wars where the conquerer offers the defeated a chance to surrender. If what you say is true, the conquerer would never make that offer.

Your scenario is the exception, not the rule. Warriors offering no quarter that come to mind are Ghengis Khan, Phol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, et al. Not particularily the combat doctrine we should emulate.

Krusty-
You were doing pretty good until that last post. You make statements that have no relevance to each other, grossly speculate, and make wild leaps of faith. You should have quit while ahead. If you truly believe those things you're living in a pretty convoluted world.

The white flag comes up then they make the offer. Just like the corner throws in the towel in a fight. History is very clear on the subject.

That's right, when the conquerer makes the offer. And it doesn't always result in a white flag, either.