Has anyone noticed Bush is starting WWIII

[Sarge]

You do realize that you are advocating for imperialism. The amazing thing is that you are a Pakistani Muslim. You are a rare breed. Wow

I must admit I admire your frankness, way too many conservative (and some libertarians) are simply being dishonest with themselves about our foreign policy ambitions, you are not.

I (unfortunately) think it's going to take that for 20-30 years. We are attempting to change a mentality and way of life that has been around for thousands of years. We may have to dictate how things work for awhile until the paradigm shifts.

That is where we have failed in Iraq. We are such believers in freedom that we think we can give it out and people will know what to do with it immediately. That is not the case in that part of the world. We need to have a more direct hand in what goes on and tell people how things are going ot be for awhile, then slowly back out of the scene once they get the hang of things

[Ghost of]

You do realize that you are advocating for imperialism. The amazing thing is that you are a Pakistani Muslim. You are a rare breed. Wow

I must admit I admire your frankness, way too many conservative (and some libertarians) are simply being dishonest with themselves about our foreign policy ambitions, you are not.

If you had a neighborhood in which the depredations of the criminal gangs cost lives and property and they could not be reasoned with and they had an organizing and powerful ideology that resisted efforts at co-opting or integration, you'd probably feel that some 'force' was ncessary to change that neighborhood.

I'm not talking about imperialism, personally, but this world, sadly, does not comport with libertarian aspirations for foreign policy. Open borders and hands off foreign policy does not work when, compromised or no, you are teh world's largest and most successful country EVER (which is what separates the US from the Swiss.)

And since the Danes and other Europeans now suffer the scourge of jihadist separatism and revanchism, one can safely conclude that "arab/muslim-friendly" policies do not innoculate a country from the scheming of the jihad.

A jihad, I'd remind some people here that has been going on since the inception of the faith. Unless one thinks the Visigoths were ejected from Spain by aliens.

SHF,

I'll add Southern Thailand. But wait, I'm sure there's some 'grievance' for beheading Buddhist monks. ENOUGH EXCUSES--kill or be killed. At least with Europe, if their economic systems weren't so resistant to long-term immigration, some of these issues would be mitigated(that and they need to end the socialist experiment, but good luck with that) But in general, I survey a world where everytime the Muslim population hits a critical mass, they start to claim territory or want to establish Ottoman "millet" systems as a precursor to outright takeover.

Maybe, just maybe, we should take the concept and ideal of jihad at face value. The radicals have learned new techniques (and there were other interpretations of Islam, but the 'radical' ones seem most appealing for whatever reason) and some are barely Islamic, actually, but they know the power and drive that Islamism provides. And sadly, the virus is spreading and infecting areas that were not so sick before, like Indonesia.

[gimpy007]

I have not read all the coments on this post so I am not speaking for everyone or about everone when I say this... Why do people blame Bush for everything wrong in this world..?

[visionary]

I will agree agree also. The question is how do you stop "this stuff form going on". I used to think we could stop it in the mosques in SA, but it looks like it is past that point. How do we stop it now?

I think and may well be totally wrong, that the only way to stop it is to alienate the leaders and nutjobs by trying to help improve conditions in the Middle East and by trying to spread Democracy as much as we can (prefferably not be military actions). We have to go after the cells and their leaders, but try our best to discriminate between them and the rest and to try to drive wedges between them.

We need to lead by example, and by showing that we are better than these scum, by making it clear that we not only do not approve of torture, but will not tolerate it and anyone who will seek to use it for fun or whatever other reason (except maybe, in really, really extreme cases).

We need to prosecute people who use the war as a tool to help themselves out or to lord it over people in Iraq who are disadvantaged and in a postion to be exploited.

Most of all we need to show both the terrorists and the rest of the Middle East that while we will not resort to the kinds of things that Al Queda, Zarqawi, or those despots throughout the Middle East who only make more and more enemies for themselves and anyone who is their ally, we Will stand up to the terrorists if they try to take advantage of any situations that we may end up inadvertantly creating for them to move around easier in, in the meantime.

I think that Bush and co. are doing some of this, and have pledged to do more...in theory. Iraq may have been a huge misstep, only time will tell. There are many good things to pick from what they and much of the middle East is up to right now. In places like Lebanon and Kuwait, Palestine, and even Saudia Arabia they have been freeing things up more. Palestine, seems to be much clsoer to where we want things to be than they have been in a long time. It may still be a long time yet, until they are completely ready.

The important thing to remember is that this all takes a lot of time and in the meantime and a lot of sacrifices on the part of many people. I think that this is the best way to go, to hit the terrorists not just in their camps, but in the hearts and the minds of their bases and those that that seek to terrorize into following them. We have to go right to the people and not just the governments, and we have to do this by showing them that there are alternatives to terror or dictatorship.

This may not be anything really new (since much of this is the sort of stuff the Bush administration likes to talk about during speeches, though their ways of going about achieving it may be severely flawed in many ways) , and I don't know if it will ultimately work out but it is in my view the best chance that we have of winning the war on terror, or at least in minimizing terror.

To do this we have to reach out to the people of the Middle East and those in Europe and Asia, and show them that things in the Middle East are improving (another benefit (I suppose) of this is that it would detour more of them from deciding to leave their homelands in search a better life in other countries).

The important thing to keep in mind is that real change in the Middle East and with the War on Terror can only be had by going to those people most directly affected by it and involved in it. We should not force anything on any country (i.e. populace) that does not want our help, unless of coruse they are harboring and aiding terrorists, like Al Queda. (and even then we have to be careful to seperate the pondscum from the water)

And I know there are those out there who think that this sort of thing will only make it harder to be more effective militarily, and that we ought to do what Assad did or even what Saddam did, but I don't really think we want to go down those paths, I think we have seen already what that gets people in Iraq, and Lebanon, and other places.

Now I know a lot of people think that there is no way to really change the Middle East (and all we will do is create civil wars).

And others out there think that we should just stay away and leave them alone and they will leave us alone and we will not lose thousands of American troops (though I am not advocating using military means except in the most extreme cases and I think in those cases it would probably be worth it, as much as any loss of American Life can be).

And I am sure that there are those who think (and will give some evidence to support it maybe) that improving conditions does not lesson terrorist recruiting numbers among that population.

But it seems to me that if we want to win the war on terror, this is the best, and perhaps the only way to do it, and it is in my view the most honorable way, as well. In the end it might not work out (though I think it will) but the cost of not even trying, is just too high to pay, in human lives, in misery, in future terror, and in losing the moral high ground to those who want to do to us over here what they are doing over there in Iraq and Jordan, right now.

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

Then again, if the rest of you have some good ideas for what to do, let's hear em.

[visionary]

Well lets try and come up with some major Muslim conflicts and see what we have

1) Palestine- IMO its economics here stupid. Jews and Muslims lived in that area for a long time together, and once the Muslims were put in refugee camps in the late 40s, forgot about education, and became poor, well why the hell not lets strap bombs to ourselves. This is one of the root causes in the Arab nations because of how those governments can use it as propaganda[/quuote]

I agree, and they use a lot of other things as propaganda. Israel Palestine kind of reminds me of the last scene in Revenge of the Sith. . . Annikin say's to Obi Wan THAT'S NOT HOW I SEE IT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW!!!! That one line reminds me of that conflict. Israel is pulling out, and it appears to be working.

Again, I agree. I was hoping the earthquake would finish the fighting, as when there is a horrid disastor, wars tend to stop, and humanity takes over.

3 for 3, cut them loose, and give them what they want.

I truly hope this happens one day, but I really have doubts.

Great job ShF, and I agree with everything you said, but how do we stop the radical teachings of Islam? That is what I want to figure out.

I don't know that you do, otherwise that might seem highly hypocritical of us. You just have to make them look like the nutjobs they really are, instead of a bunch of homeless shelter caregivers like they want to appear. For the ones who leave their hate and bigotry to preaching, you alienate and embarass. For the ones who actually try to lead attacks and create suicide schools, you alienate and then eliminate (though it could go in either order, depending on the seriousness of the situation).

[visionary]

Well lets try and come up with some major Muslim conflicts and see what we have

1) Palestine- IMO its economics here stupid. Jews and Muslims lived in that area for a long time together, and once the Muslims were put in refugee camps in the late 40s, forgot about education, and became poor, well why the hell not lets strap bombs to ourselves. This is one of the root causes in the Arab nations because of how those governments can use it as propaganda

2) Kashmir- This thing is so so close to being resolved but the diehards in each country want all or nothing. There is a moderate voice in Pakistan saying lets settle this, but will they be heard?

3) Chechnya- The Russians got their asses kicked in 1994, but kept going back. Then the Chechans, who once were about freedom, started taking over operas once the Arabs arrived. Honestly Russia should cut its ties here, its just not worth it

4) Iraq- I fully believe if we keep training and arming the Iraqis the tide will turn against Al Qaeda here

Now the West, in terms of England and France. In France I once again say its economics. If you had to work the next day you won't be roving around burning ****

England I think has a far greater problem, and is in a very dangerous state. Muslims there for the most part are fairly ok (sort of like in NA) but you still have elements hell bent on bringing down the British gov't and creating mayhem

In North America, I think Muslims are the best off. I would be absolutley stunned if we had an England situation here with "home grown" terrorists. We have jobs, we are getting educated, we like white women (jokes jokes!)

Anyone want to add on?

Good post and I agree with just about all of it. (which makes it an even better post )

[jbooma]

Seriously, you have the makings of a giant war, and until he leaves, the world is going to be destabalized.

Paris, Lebanon bombing, Australia, training camps in Iraq. It is pretty god damn apparent Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted, and made him a HELL of a lot stronger.

:doh: :doh:

chom you have no clue, you really don't and it is sad sometimes

[Spaceman Spiff]

I wanted a sensationalistic title to get in some people who would like to discuss the current rise in terrorism, and what people think the reason for it is, and how do you stop it?

:2cents:

It's just their version of machoistic chest thumping that people accuse Americans of doing.

They also lack the skills to sit down and try to reason things out. They think violence is the only answer and that if they do it enough they'll get their way.

I also think they perceive that they're doing what America does. Some people like to try to warp our actions into some sort of "terrorist" act because they might not agree with the Presidents agenda. The reality of the situation is that we nor they necessarily know ALL of the reasons that went into creating the plan to put the actions into motion.

Look man, even THEY don't know what they want. They just want to kill people that aren't like them and get to pork (pun intended) a bunch of virgins in their heaven. At least, thats all I can gather.

[visionary]

In other ME news....

Peres ousted from Labor Party leadership post

Winner Amir Peretz vows to end alliance with Sharon government

The Associated Press

Updated: 12:58 a.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005

JERUSALEM - A fiery union leader won a stunning victory over Shimon Peres in the leadership contest for Israel’s Labor Party, officials said Thursday, dealing a blow to the elder statesman that could endanger the country’s shaky governing coalition.

Amir Peretz has promised to pull Labor out of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government, raising the likelihood of early elections. The defeat also could spell the end of Peres’ distinguished, six-decade political career. Peres had been heavily favored to win.

Party secretary Eitan Cabel, announcing Peretz’s victory, said the labor leader captured over 42 percent of the vote, while Peres took just under 40 percent. A third candidate, former party head Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, got 17 percent.

The outcome will have deep implications for Sharon’s shaky coalition.

Peres, a former prime minister who is now vice premier, wanted to keep Labor in the government until elections scheduled in November 2006.

He led the party into the governing coalition this year to shore up support for Sharon’s plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. The pullout divided Sharon’s Likud Party and without Labor’s support, the plan could not have been carried out.

Socialist roots

Peretz wants to steer the party back to its socialist roots, pull out of the coalition and force early elections. His message resonated with Israelis disenfranchised by government cuts in social spending and the country’s growing gap between rich and poor.

Sharon’s Likud Party is deeply divided following the Gaza withdrawal in September. Without Labor’s support, he will struggle to keep his coalition intact until the next election, raising the likelihood of early elections.

After the formal victory announcement, a jubilant Peretz, 54, said the party would notify Sharon that it wants to pull out of the government.

“We want to pull out, out of responsibility to Israeli democracy ... and to make the Labor Party an alternative that will return to power in the next elections,” he told cheering supporters at party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

He said it was too early to say when Labor would quit the government, but that the party would formulate its position within a few days.

Opinion polls had forecast a resounding victory for Peres in Wednesday’s primary. But after two exit polls gave conflicting results, party activists hunkered down for a long night.

Suspicions of fraud

Peres called a surprise news conference at 3:15 a.m. to say he suspected fraud had occurred in the vote. Peres did not directly accuse Peretz of foul play, but said reports of wrongdoing had to be checked.

“At this stage, we ask to check the complaints,” he said. “We are turning to the legal institutions of the party to look into this.”

But party officials rejected the fraud claim, clearing the way for a Peretz victory.

The defeat was a major embarrassment for Peres, who enjoyed double-digit leads in opinion polls, and cemented his image as a perennial loser.

While Peres, a Nobel peace laureate, is widely revered abroad, he has had trouble connecting with Israeli voters and failed in five previous elections for prime minister.

The 82-year-old repeatedly has emerged from the political wilderness. But political analyst Hanan Crystal said the defeat might mark the end of his career.

“This could be his wake. What can he do after this?” Crystal said. He said Peres’ other options including becoming Peretz’s deputy or splitting off from the party.

Peres believed that remaining in the coalition would let him push forward with peace efforts. Since the Gaza pullout, he has led negotiations with the Palestinians to resolve key disputes, such as control over Gaza’s borders, and to help rebuild Gaza’s shattered economy.

Peretz said that with the Gaza withdrawal complete, the party should pull out of the government and focus on the economy. Labor has adopted more free-market economic policies in recent years, drawing criticism from its traditional supporters in the unions, working class and farming sectors.

Peretz also could face difficulties within the Labor Party. Pulling out of the coalition will mean that eight senior members will have to step down from coveted positions of government ministers.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9983929/

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Seriously, you have the makings of a giant war, and until he leaves, the world is going to be destabalized.

Paris, Lebanon bombing, Australia, training camps in Iraq. It is pretty god damn apparent Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted, and made him a HELL of a lot stronger.

Is this just a loaded statement because you figured it was in only way you would get people to respond? Or do you actually believe the crap you're espousing.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You do realize that you are advocating for imperialism. The amazing thing is that you are a Pakistani Muslim. You are a rare breed. Wow

I must admit I admire your frankness, way too many conservative (and some libertarians) are simply being dishonest with themselves about our foreign policy ambitions, you are not.

Well I certainly do not want it to devolve into imperialism

What I think I really meant to say and probably did not word it correctly was that attitudes of the common Muslim in the ME will take at least a generation to change, if that is at all possible.

This whole adventure may completely blow up and we'll never get out of there without leaving behind a theocracy, who knows. Does this involve an American presence in the middle east over the next 30, 40 , 50 years? It has to, there is no other choice

In Pakistan I look at the results before independence and partition and what happened in those 58 years, and the results after independence and partition.

99 percent of the problem with poverty and radicalism in India and Pakistan is Kashmir. Solve that and I think we go a very long way towards wiping out potential terrorism in Pakistan

And yes I do take myself being a rare breed as a compliment I do realize I have many "unconventional" beliefs for the demographic I am in

[Chopper Dave]

This may just be the anarchist in me talking, but it seems as though the world is and has always been a powderkeg, just waiting to blow. After it does, it just refills itself. Just look at WWI. You had rapidly rising tensions in the Balkans, and it took one bullet for the whole damn thing to explode. The consequences of that war caused WWII. The consequences of WWII caused the Cold War. And the consequences of international Cold War policies will most certainly cause WWIII.

We funded too many people who now hate us, screwed too many people over in the process for it to not end like that. We have countries all throughout the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa, that hate us either because we dropped our support when the Cold War was over (Iraq, Afghanistan, and we've taken care of them, hopefully, but we've still got places like Syria) or we supported their enemies during the Cold War (Iran, China, etc.). I see what the administration is trying to do in taking out the hostile governments, but we've left too many loose ends. There's no point in making more enemies, in causing more hatred, death, and destruction. Iraq isn't wrong because there weren't any WMDs. Iraq isn't even wrong so much as it is pointless. Hussein was happy running his little oppressed ****hole corner of the World. Why even bother taking him out? Another one will just pop up in some other 3rd world dustbin. Hell, for every one we take down we prop up an even bigger one (Saudi Arabia, anyone?).

Iraq is bull****. For all intents and purposes, Afghanistan was bull****. Yeah, we needed to do it, but it was of little or no consequences. If bin Laden isn't the one planning the attacks it'll be someone else. You know why we haven't been hit in 4 years? Because they aren't done planning it. Security is an illusion. It doesn't exist on a global scale.

I digress. None of this has anything to do with WWIII. These are all skirmishes in the great battle that is human existence. WWIII is going to happen. If it's not China, it'll be India. If it's not India, it'll be Russia. If it's not Russia, it'll be Lichtenstein. Luxembourg. The Federated States of ****ing Micronesia. It doesn't matter. It's engrained in human nature. We can take down however many regimes we want, it's only delaying the certain. An enemy will rise out of the ashes of the Cold War and create enough tension to cause our collapse, their collapse, or war resulting in one or both. Repeat process again. And again. And again.

It's not our fault. It's inevitability. And God dammit, I just wish we didn't have to piddle over little bumps in the road like this.

[Johnny Punani2]

Yeah, Bush got all the islamists acting like they have for the past 1000 years:rolleyes:

Sure you don't want to change your name to "crazyhorse jr" or something more appropriate

crazyhorse jr BUWHAHAHAHA!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Johnny Punani2]

Seriously, you have the makings of a giant war, and until he leaves, the world is going to be destabalized.

Paris, Lebanon bombing, Australia, training camps in Iraq. It is pretty god damn apparent Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted, and made him a HELL of a lot stronger.

chom have you been going over to the democratic underground site agan?

[Crazyhorse1]

that's a pretty stong statement

while I understand what you are saying, would you rather these things be happening in the United States?

Why in the world would they be happening in the United States? The rhetorical trick you are using, big guy, is called begging the question. To answer yes or no would be to concede that there is a relationship between us fighting over there and not fighting over here. Sorry, son. There isn't.

When did you decide to take up Bush administration dishonesty and flim flam?

Do you think Al Qaida will rescue the President if he's indicted by Fitzgerald?

Do the Neocons kill Iraqis for pleasure or do they do it for the oil?

How many terrorists would it take to get rid of Texas?

[Crazyhorse1]

Bush is responsible for the Paris riots? And the Lebanon bombing? And Australia? Your credibility diminishes with every stupid post you make.

There is absolutely no question that Bush is responsible for destabilizing the Middle East and other parts of the world as well. Before Bush, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt had friendly relations with the United States-- and other parts of the Middle East had at least a working relationship with us, such as the United Arab Emirates. Now, frankly, we disgust all of the above, and there is no country in the Middle East that accepts our leadership role. Even the Israelies think we're imbeciles.

Further, the Aussie think Blair and Bush are a couple of Morons, Italy won't give us the time of day, the Germans think we're worse than they are, and the French, like the rest, have refused to do anything to help us; and all, all, blame George W. for the spread of terrorism in their countries.

There is now no sane leadership in the world. As William Butler Yeats once said, "Things fly apart. The center will not hold."

What's happening in France and Australia is symptomatic of this. Maybe some day you'll be as smart as the guy you think is nuts. I hope so.

[airborneskins]

There is absolutely no question that Bush is responsible for destabilizing the Middle East and other parts of the world as well. Before Bush, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt had friendly relations with the United States-- and other parts of the Middle East had at least a working relationship with us, such as the United Arab Emirates. Now, frankly, we disgust all of the above, and there is no country in the Middle East that accepts our leadership role. Even the Israelies think we're imbeciles.

Further, the Aussie think Blair and Bush are a couple of Morons, Italy won't give us the time of day, the Germans think we're worse than they are, and the French, like the rest, have refused to do anything to help us; and all, all, blame George W. for the spread of terrorism in their countries.

There is now no sane leadership in the world. As William Butler Yeats once said, "Things fly apart. The center will not hold."

What's happening in France and Australia is symptomatic of this. Maybe some day you'll be as smart as the guy you think is nuts. I hope so.

Go back to bed Grampa.. :doh:

[visionary]

Why in the world would they be happening in the United States? The rhetorical trick you are using, big guy, is called begging the question. To answer yes or no would be to concede that there is a relationship between us fighting over there and not fighting over here. Sorry, son. There isn't.

When did you decide to take up Bush administration dishonesty and flim flam?

Do you think Al Qaida will rescue the President if he's indicted by Fitzgerald?

Do the Neocons kill Iraqis for pleasure or do they do it for the oil?

How many terrorists would it take to get rid of Texas?

Speak of the debbil.

[Thiebear]

I wanted a sensationalistic title to get in some people who would like to discuss the current rise in terrorism, and what people think the reason for it is, and how do you stop it?

^

|

Definition of Trolling... You know better.

[chomerics]

^

|

Definition of Trolling... You know better.

Yes bear, you are right. . . but look at some of the responses in this thread, some of the better posts in the tailgate in a while. People looked at the first post thought "what the hell did he smoke tonight" and started to read. It turned into a very good discussion on how to STOP terrorism, and a lot of people threw out some good ideas, something that would have just turned into a Bush is horrible thread if I asked the question directly.

I also wanted to prove a point, in a round about way to everyone about Iraq. The reason for getting people in was false (this thread/Iraq) but there can still be some good to come out of it. Some really good posts by ShF and Visonary, two people who are diametrically opposed to me ideologically speaking, but we can find common ground in this area. We just need to focus on on a solution rather then the problem. I have to go to work, but I will post my opinion of what I think we should do to stop terrorism hopefully at lunch or tonight.

[ATLANTASKINSFAN]

Seriously, you have the makings of a giant war, and until he leaves, the world is going to be destabalized.

Paris, Lebanon bombing, Australia, training camps in Iraq. It is pretty god damn apparent Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted, and made him a HELL of a lot stronger.

Are you really trying to blame Paris on Bush. Paris has no one to blame but themselves. Thank God that we have a president who will take the fight on the road against these muslim extremist. Otherwise we would be like Paris and have to fight the battle in our own backyard.

Just goes to show what can happen when you dont crush these people. Being forgiving and ignoring them only brings what you are seeing in Paris.

[tlk2rn]

Seriously, you have the makings of a giant war, and until he leaves, the world is going to be destabalized.

Paris, Lebanon bombing, Australia, training camps in Iraq. It is pretty god damn apparent Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted, and made him a HELL of a lot stronger.

That's liberal america for you, when in doubt blame Bush. If you ask me you are the nut job.

[tlk2rn]

You are exactly right. There were no training camps for terrorists prior to Bush taking office. And Paris is definitely being punished because of their support of us and our policies.

I remember back in 2000, what a peaceful world we lived in. I bet if Gore had been elected then 9-11 would've been just another Tuesday.

To blame one man for the state of the world today is beyond even a stretch.

And if Bush is really the target of Bin Laden, why hasn't he taken a shot at him...or us for that matter?

Dude get a grip, Clinton was just too chicken to make a move. The 1993 bombing of the WTC, yeah, he knew exactly who did it, and there is evidence that his administration had an idea that Bin Laden was targeting those same buildings prior to him leaving office. What about the USS Cole where my cousins brother-in-law was killed. Was there anything done about that. NO!!!!!! Bush just had the guts to do what that president wouldn't and should have done.

[tlk2rn]

Your are right, and I completely agree with you. But, why don't we just pull out and let Israel fight thier own battles? They are strong enough to survive, they kicked the crap out of everyone in the three days war.

The thing is we are supplying them. They have our jets our tanks and our guns. We even train them. We trained their pilots, infantrymen and everyone else involved in the Israeli military. Besides, look on the map, they are just a small country, it's like surrounding Rhode Island around Montana, Texas, and California. Those countries by the way hate Israel. Maybe we feel sorry for them or maybe we are there from a religious standpoint, after all it is the Holy Land.

[Thiebear]

Yes bear, you are right. . . but look at some of the responses in this thread, some of the better posts in the tailgate in a while. People looked at the first post thought "what the hell did he smoke tonight" and started to read. It turned into a very good discussion on how to STOP terrorism, and a lot of people threw out some good ideas, something that would have just turned into a Bush is horrible thread if I asked the question directly.

I also wanted to prove a point, in a round about way to everyone about Iraq. The reason for getting people in was false (this thread/Iraq) but there can still be some good to come out of it. Some really good posts by ShF and Visonary, two people who are diametrically opposed to me ideologically speaking, but we can find common ground in this area. We just need to focus on on a solution rather then the problem. I have to go to work, but I will post my opinion of what I think we should do to stop terrorism hopefully at lunch or tonight.

Terrorism will stop itself to a degree: Now that they have someone fighting back they are making mistakes... It's no longer US against them: Its 'almost' Everyone against them.

You'll see...

Mark this down: Chomerics above is saying He understands the way this thread (Iraq) Started out was wrong. BUT, the ends justify the means so its o.k. ...