Nu2Salt: LOL ! I guess I am glad you are confused..because for the last page or two...you and Val have been making points so off-the-wall that I am making bloodhound faces at the computer. If I came across as confusing, I can only say it was not my intention. Sometimes I have so many points built up that I sound like a constipated Neandertal in trying to express them .

WE have killed/captured half or more of al-Qaeda. However, it is now decentralized. decentralizing the terrorists has good and bad sides. Not being localized in Afghanistan means that it is difficult for them to function as one, monolithic organization having thus to rely on communications (tape recorders, written letters, e-mails, cell phone calls) which means that communications are slowed and risk being intercepted. Losing its centralization however has its benefits (for them) in that like smothering a fire, they have splintered off and formed independent, smaller cells that are difficult to track.

Al-Qaeda is still a threat despite its defeat in Afghanistan and ITS quagmire in Iraq. The 1944 Ardenness Offensive, the Japanese Plan to bomb the Panama Canal, Waterloo, and Kennesaw Mountain (1864) all show us that an enemy practically vanquished still has the capability of punching back. We need to escape the mind set that an obviously crushed enemy is contained or incapable of launching any sizeable offensive.

As for your statement about why haven't we attacked other threats? Do you mean to tell me that if Bush bombed the countries you listed as enemies (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc) that you'd support it? Well let's see...North Korea had nothing to do with 9/11 so you would not support that, and neither did Iran. If we bomb Saudi Arabia the Liberals WOULD DEFINITELY cry "War for Oil" so we'd be back to negative pacificism. My point is that we are not looking at the war in Iraq 2 or 3 dimensionally; we are not realizing the "what if's" and the secondary links to al-Qaeda.

I agree with you 100% that our alliance with Saudi Arabia is shady at best, and I feel the same about Pakistan. I'd rather attack Saudi Arabia than Iraq...first. However, if we became offensive to Saudi Arabia, either diplomatically or militarily, we scrap ANY possible Muslim support (because of its religious value to Islam), which although minimal, is highly strategic. Jordan and Egypt have disclosed valuable intel on al-Qaeda's operations, especially in Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

Secondly, even Sun Tzu will say to "attack your enemies at their weakest part." Iraq's military (conventionally speaking) is weaker than Iran but stronger than Saudi Arabia (This is according to The Military Balance that says Iraq is the 14th strongest world power...Iran is about 9th, North Korea is 3rd and Saudi Arabia is lower than 14th...I have th book boxed up so I am not sure but am POSITIVE about the first 3... I had to memorize the top 10 for a class taught by a CIA agent ) . The Saudi military is however more organized than Iraq's. I however believe it should be dealt with, but Iraq is more strategic for more reasons:
-isolates Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan
-Puts pressure on Syria
-secure vital oil source (and I wanted this to be a war for oil, ask Spin, we debated alot last year, but I don't see it like that)

Lastly, I am flattered that you compared me to a fascist. But I have already said two or three times that I believe support for a President at a time of war is not limited to party affiliation and that IF Kerry were elected, I'd support him in this war, and the next...because there will be a next. If Clinton waged this war and Republicans would be whinbing about going to war (*which we don't whine because we are more patriotic and even polls support that claim) was falsely claimed, I'd be voting for Clinton and might even be tempted to switch parties.

Got bored tonight, looked up that Al-Jazeera website thats always on the news.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Pretty neat seeing their opinion. If you guys are intrested, read away, lots of cartoons and stuff.. You can tell the arab world just dont like and this is going to get worse. No wonder the insurgents are getting more funded and supporters.

The funny part is that GWs dad wrote in his book why he never would take the iraqs captial... Predicting this would happen. LOL..

--
Wow, this thread is really to long. Im sure I said something about the environment by now?.... I guess Im a single issue voter.. There is a rule you have when you fish, bring out what you bring in. Leave the land as you found it. Bush dosent know this rule, just lives for the day or political donation at the expense of the enviroment and its future, much of which will never be reversed.

--


One thing I can say is I cant wait for the election to be over. This crap is on TV and the new all the day. Im so tired of it.

What I am about to say is not to offend anybody.

Henry, you are hopelessly brainwashed by the Faaaaaar Right. Like all cult members you may never know that. But at least you are not 'brain dead' like some of our less fortunate ditto heads (JFM and jon h come to mind). I can see that your neurons are still firing up in your head. I wish you would listen to nu2salt instead of parrying his logic with some pseudo-intellectual obfuscations. He is probably the best teacher you will ever come in contact with in your life. If he hasn't persuaded you, then probably nobody will.

Just about the same time as Kerry was a 'disloyal' anti-war criminal and Bush was 'loyally' saving his a$$ from Vietnam, I studied physics in college in the Soviet Union. Some of the kids on campus were exactly like you. They were 'loyal Soviet patriots' . If other kids would speak against the government the 'loyalists' would denounce their fellow students as anti-Soviet and un-Patriotic. They would sometimes rat the dissidents out to the KGB. You know what happened then. You major in History after all (read GULAG). The 'patriots' used the same slavish logic as you: the USSR was permanently at 'war' with the Yankee 'imperialists'. Good citizens must support their government and their Leader at the time of war. Etc., etc. But those kids were brought up in a Totalitarian state. WTF is wrong with you, man?

BTW, you know who won in the end in the Soviet Union, loyal citizens or disloyal ones?!.

I hope for your (and my) sake that Kerry wins the Election. A good dose of reality may cure you.

By reality I mean that a whole bunch of dirty secrets of the Bush White House will come to light. A lot of Bushies will probably be indicted for dereliction of duty or worse. We will know at last who outed Valerie Plame and why the maps of Iraqi oil fields were brought into the Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings, won't we?

Than we will talk again. See you after the Election.

You obviously have not read any of my second to last post. I have transformed myself as a right-wing conservative in reaction to the LIBERAL BRAINWASHING running rampant on today's campuses. You might not believe this but I was once pro-choice, in favor of government programs for the lower class, and a secularist. I have experienced alot of socialist ideas while in college in Georgia and here in Connecticut. In both of my fields, history and political science (foreign relations) professors have some socialist agenda at hand.

By my own accord I realized I was wrong, and a true and honorable way of life cannot be achieved by believing in those concepts.

You claim that my 'parrying' of Nu2Salt's claims are "pseudo-intellectucal obfuscations." Either you regard my argument as baseless and stupid , or you do not know the definition of obfuscation. I immediately dismiss the latter because I can tell you know your stuff. My confusing rhetoric is only confusing to those who are reading it and know little of the matter, or those who do not know the subject at all my dear friend. No offense, but why is the more names, facts and terrorist specifics I mention, the more 'confusing' it becomes?

You are correct in asserting the fact that 'disloyal' citizens helped dissolve the USSR. But in the US we do not have an oppressive regime, nor an authoritarian society, but instead a democracy. Therefore disloyalty equals aiding those who want to end our way of life (i.e the terrorists, Enemies within). I'd rather see disloyalty if the government was oppressive and if those insurgents were intelligent enough to successfully replace, restablish and reform a new government (afterall, stupid people tyring to alter a government may not be worthy).

Similar to you, my mother fled communism, and she gets annoyed when people compare our President to a dictatorship. I have taken many courses on Cold War USSR/ Eastern Europe and have read Gulag but that was about 3 years ago and found it boring . I also read Koestler's Darkness at Noon last spring as well as Solzhenitsien's (sp.) Letters to the Soviet Leaders (both better readings). The system described by your former government at that time is advocated by professor's here in the US now...and if anybody should be concerened it should be you.

Marxist brothers...I like that one!!

The day I become a liberal will be the day you see me marching with a rainbow in one hand and a small "No war for oil T-shirt" on.

As of now I wear a large and I usually wear black...so it will never happen.

Thanks for the kind words Baitrunner....