This guy nails it.



Just as a presidency of earlier ossified liberals like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale probably would have led to support of a utopian nuclear freeze and subsequent Russian intimidation of Europe, unilateral cuts in military preparedness, and acquiescence to the Soviet Union, so too the election of John Kerry may well undo much of what has been achieved these last three years as we return to the old, normal way of doing business.


With Howard Dean gone, Kerry realizes that suddenly he must move rightward to sound tougher than George Bush. Finally, he seems to understand that every northern liberal Democrat in the last 30 years who ran to the left on national security lost badly — like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. And so Mr. Kerry abruptly will have to talk grandly of what he would have done to make us more secure. Yet a better guide is his own record in opposing defense programs, in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force, and his own contradictory past votes about deployments to the Middle East.



More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come.

The entire article here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200403050842.asp

Yet a better guide is his own record in opposing defense programs, in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force
- This is very disconserting. When people start using a person's critical attitude towards use of violence against him as a criticism, this means that the government has done a too thurrough job of brainwashing some of it's citicens.

What ever happened to viewing war as the last option? Or the good old quote "the lesser evil is still evil"?

I certainly don't like where this looks to be heading.

You are way off IDK (naturally),

It isn't that we are so hungry for war it's that we know the Democratic Party won't go to war if half our country was nuked! The Demoscum are so pacifistic that they would collapse in a heap and bray for the stinking UN to come in and take over for us.

THAT is what we are talking about. We are no more interested in resorting to war first than anyone else but we realize that war IS a necessity sometimes. And we want to be ready for it. If we get a Demosocialist in that office we will have a gutted military, a devestated Intelligence capability and we will be vulnerable to every enemy we have thanks to them.

Originally posted by ColWTH
It isn't that we are so hungry for war it's that we know the Democratic Party won't go to war if half our country was nuked!

You and powerboss are the reason I know that conservatives are absolutely wrong-you say things like this, and so does fox news...it's so re-assuring.

Hey Powerboss, next time how about you find an artical that doesn't use obvious political bias as a weapon of 'truth' :rolleyes: This is almost as bad as your NORTH KOREA LOVES JOHN COMMUNIST KERRY

- This is very disconserting. When people start using a person's critical attitude towards use of violence against him as a criticism, this means that the government has done a too thurrough job of brainwashing some of it's citicens.

What ever happened to viewing war as the last option? Or the good old quote "the lesser evil is still evil"?

I certainly don't like where this looks to be heading.


Kerry's record and attitude is extremely important at these times.
He wants to let the UN make our decisions for us.

You and powerboss are the reason I know that conservatives are absolutely wrong-you say things like this, and so does fox news...it's so re-assuring.


LOL.

Yeah, your're right Volconvo. Democrats love war when a Democrat President starts them like in Iraq in 1998 and Serbia right?

Why did we go to war in Serbia Volconvo?


Hey Powerboss, next time how about you find an artical that doesn't use obvious political bias as a weapon of 'truth' This is almost as bad as your NORTH KOREA LOVES JOHN COMMUNIST KERRY

Hey Volconvo, what is your problem with op-eds?
Is this going to be your ongoing attitude towards op-eds, even when posted by your fellow leftists?

Why don't you refute the article or prove the atuthor wrong instead of blabbering about nothing and changing the focus?

It isn't that we are so hungry for war it's that we know the Democratic Party won't go to war if half our country was nuked!

As far as I know the only President to use Nucular weapons was a Democrat.



More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter

And thats exactly what it should be! BTW how is the "War on Drugs" going. Somehow it amazes me how the US can declare war on issues and those "wars" generally fail or exacerbate the situation.

He wants to let the UN make our decisions for us.

More correctly stated he wants to make diplomacy work. Dumbya's daddy made it work well and as a result he built a powerful coalliton. Dumbya didnt and has opened a huge can of worms. I suspect Spain is just the first to withdraw from the Coallition of the Willing ( and coerced)

Originally posted by ColWTH
You are way off IDK (naturally),

It isn't that we are so hungry for war it's that we know the Democratic Party won't go to war if half our country was nuked! The Demoscum are so pacifistic that they would collapse in a heap and bray for the stinking UN to come in and take over for us.
THAT is what we are talking about. We are no more interested in resorting to war first than anyone else but we realize that war IS a necessity sometimes. And we want to be ready for it. If we get a Demosocialist in that office we will have a gutted military, a devestated Intelligence capability and we will be vulnerable to every enemy we have thanks to them.
- Oh come on. You can't be serious. Do you actually believe what you're writing? (It's hard to know with you conservatives, you know. One moment you're dead serious, the next you're just using colourful rethorics.)

What I'm talking about can specifically be seen here: "in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force"

We here see implied in the rethoric that a critical attitude towards violence is negative alone and in itself! (this is implied by his lack of explanation of why this, in these non-specific cases, was negative)

GWB has also openly decleared himself the "war president" without (as far as I know) recieving any noticeable criticism from his fellow party members.

The word "war" almost seemes to be on it's way to becoming considered a positive one in the US.
Originally posted by Powerboss
Kerry's record and attitude is extremely important at these times.
He wants to let the UN make our decisions for us.
- Decisions that affect other parts of the world than your own should be taken in a proper forum. It's the basic principle for most western legislation. "your freedom ends where mine begins". No country should be allowed to roguishly sit in the dark and plan for the end of the world.

>>>It's hard to know with you conservatives, you know. One moment you're dead serious, the next you're just using colourful rethorics.

Oh, yeah. And the left is all sense and logic … ever heard of Michael Moore and Al Franken. You sound like a fool to act as if only the right holds the ground of over the top rhetoric and sophistry. I, on the other hand, never claimed my side is innocent of such as you seem to be doing YOUR side! It is rather pointless to even say such a thing because it is just a GIVEN that BOTH sides employ such tactics … and YOU are no exception.

>>> "in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force"

Actually, I have no problem with this assumption. I HOPE that the rest of the world worries about this. I WANT the rest of the world afraid of the USA.

>>>GWB has also openly decleared himself the "war president" without (as far as I know) recieving any noticeable criticism from his fellow party members.

Because he shouldn’t receive any such criticism.

>>>The word "war" almost seemes to be on it's way to becoming considered a positive one in the US.

This is a typical misunderstanding. War is NOT a positive unless it is NEEDED. Then it IS a positive! You suffer from an absolutist’s position that war is ALWAYS bad. It certainly is NOT.

Our first president said it and we have lived by it since day one…"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

This is always how the USA viewed its place in the world and its foreign policy and it should NEVER change. The world is ostensibly you enemy. Stay prepared for that at all times.

As far as I know the only President to use Nucular weapons was a Democrat.

That was a time when being a Democrat was a fairly moderate and admirable thing. They did stand for common folk back then.
Truman was a good man.


And thats exactly what it should be! BTW how is the "War on Drugs" going. Somehow it amazes me how the US can declare war on issues and those "wars" generally fail or exacerbate the situation.

My god man, how can you say that?

Look at what that type of idiotic policy got us re: 9/11.

9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue, it was an act of war.

More correctly stated he wants to make diplomacy work. Dumbya's daddy made it work well and as a result he built a powerful coalliton. Dumbya didnt and has opened a huge can of worms. I suspect Spain is just the first to withdraw from the Coallition of the Willing ( and coerced)

BS. Diplomacy to you means doing what France and Germany want us to do. Anything else is "unilateral". Doesn't matter if there are 40 something other countries involved, its still that "unilateral" word.
Bush tried diplomacy and pissed around for 14 months trying to get the issue of Iraq dealt with. The world pissed around for 12 years trying to get the issue of Iraq dealt with.

Spains people have made a grave error. When will the left realize that appeasement doesn't work?

Originally posted by ColWTH
>>>It's hard to know with you conservatives, you know. One moment you're dead serious, the next you're just using colourful rethorics.

Oh, yeah. And the left is all sense and logic … ever heard of Michael Moore and Al Franken.
You sound like a fool to act as if only the right holds the ground of over the top rhetoric and sophistry. I, on the other hand, never claimed my side is innocent of such as you seem to be doing YOUR side! It is rather pointless to even say such a thing because it is just a GIVEN that BOTH sides employ such tactics … and YOU are no exception.
- Nice dodge, sir :D But no cigar. Answer my question please.

>>> "in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force"

Actually, I have no problem with this assumption. I HOPE that the rest of the world worries about this. I WANT the rest of the world afraid of the USA.
1: I see you don't really feel a need to bring up the important parts of my posts :hmm: This is noted with interest.
2: I have noticed this attitude as well. And it is also worrying. I don't see this creating any kind of stable balance or lasting peace in this world. Fear means tension. And the US is, unlike what many people seem to believe, not omnipotent.
>>>GWB has also openly decleared himself the "war president" without (as far as I know) recieving any noticeable criticism from his fellow party members.

Because he shouldn’t receive any such criticism.
- http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/salute.gif I see that's what you and many others mean. And it's obvious that something needs to be done.

>>>The word "war" almost seemes to be on it's way to becoming considered a positive one in the US.

This is a typical misunderstanding. War is NOT a positive unless it is NEEDED. Then it IS a positive! You suffer from an absolutist’s position that war is ALWAYS bad. It certainly is NOT.
- No! War is never a positive or a good. It is always a negative evil. But it can some times be a necessary evil. This does not, however, make it a good.

This is always how the USA viewed its place in the world and its foreign policy and it should NEVER change. The world is ostensibly you enemy. Stay prepared for that at all times.
- Sure, world wide paranoia is the best way to ensure world peace and happyness. :|

My god man, how can you say that?

Look at what that type of idiotic policy got us re: 9/11.

9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue, it was an act of war.
- Actually; classifying the Al Quaeda as "warriors" rather than a bunch or criminals does, in a way, give them a certain level of legitimacy. (You could notice that the UK admin never mentioned any "war" on the IRA. )

9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue, it was an act of war.

9-11 was a criminal act it was no more an act of war than was the Oklahoma bombing. You cant fight terrorists with tanks you fight them with ideas and policemen. You want some examples? The Red Brigade, the German terrorists of the 1970's. War is something waged between countries. If fact I would imagine that if it is an actual war then the Geneva convention comes into play and you cant call them illegal enemy combatants either.

For goodness sake no country has ever been successfull in wageing a "war" on an idea. And thats exactly the result if the world looks at this as a military matter as opposed to a criminal issue.

Originally posted by I don't know

- This is very disconserting. When people start using a person's critical attitude towards use of violence against him as a criticism, this means that the government has done a too thurrough job of brainwashing some of it's citicens.


This is very disconcerting. When people start accusing of other people as 'brainwashed' for having a different point of view, this means that the government has done too poor a job educating some of its citizens. :p


What ever happened to viewing war as the last option?


LOL What does THIS have to do with having a well equipped military to USE in case of that last option?

9-11 was a criminal act it was no more an act of war than was the Oklahoma bombing. You cant fight terrorists with tanks you fight them with ideas and policemen. You want some examples? The Red Brigade, the German terrorists of the 1970's. War is something waged between countries. If fact I would imagine that if it is an actual war then the Geneva convention comes into play and you cant call them illegal enemy combatants either.

For goodness sake no country has ever been successfull in wageing a "war" on an idea. And thats exactly the result if the world looks at this as a military matter as opposed to a criminal issue.

This war is not an "idea". It is plain as day.
The law enforcement approach has been tried before and it only got more innocent people killed.

The larger issue here is whether or not the US and/or the civilized world is going to continue to be on offense, going after them where they train, fund, and hide before they attack or at the least diminishing their capabilities, or as you suggest a defensive approach in responding to terrorists and terrorist acts after they happen.

Originally posted by Powerboss

The law enforcement approach has been tried before and it only got more innocent people killed.


When and where was the "law-enforcement approach" tried and how did it get more people killed?

Why was a war not waged against white right-wingers after the Oklahoma City bombing?

When and where was the "law-enforcement approach" tried and how did it get more people killed?

That was the approach all through the 90's.

In fact, "a lack of evidence" was cited as one reason why Clinton passed on having OBL handed over to him.

Why was a war not waged against white right-wingers after the Oklahoma City bombing?

How many white right-wingers do you see supporting the OK City bombing?
How many were cheering and dancing in the streets?
How many have threatened similar attacks and vowed for the destruction of the US and civilized world?

Originally posted by Powerboss


That was the approach all through the 90's.

In fact, "a lack of evidence" was cited as one reason why Clinton passed on having OBL handed over to him.


You're going to have to be more specific. Just because Clinton missed an opportunity to catch OBL doesn't mean that terrorism should not be prosecuted as a crime or that we need to wage a "war" against terrorism, yet another war that is by definition impossible to win.

Originally posted by Powerboss
How many white right-wingers do you see supporting the OK City bombing?
How many were cheering and dancing in the streets?
How many have threatened similar attacks and vowed for the destruction of the US and civilized world?



I don't know. How many Muslims have advocated the same? I hear many right-wingers talk about "wiping out the entire middle east". Bombing every middle-east country right off the face of the planet, women, children and all. I've heard it in real life and on this very board.

You're going to have to be more specific. Just because Clinton missed an opportunity to catch OBL doesn't mean that terrorism should not be prosecuted as a crime or that we need to wage a "war" against terrorism, yet another war that is by definition impossible to win.

13 opportunies in all.

I go back to the fundamental argument of whether this terrorism thing should be proactive or reactive.
The left wants this to be a reactive issue, meaning hunt down the buggers after they committ attacks as opposed to the right who wants this to be a proactive issue, meaning hunting them down, attacking them, disrupting them, before they hit us, or at the least diminishing their capabilities to carry out missions, fund, and train.

Of course, law enforcement should play a part in this, I don't rule it out because I support the "act of war" strategery.
We will never get them all no matter what course of action we take but I can guarantee you that their lifestyle is much more complex and difficult now than it was pre-9/11.

I don't know. How many Muslims have advocated the same? I hear many right-wingers talk about "wiping out the entire middle east". Bombing every middle-east country right off the face of the planet, women, children and all. I've heard it in real life and on this very board.

Yes, I've heard it too. I don't think you'll find most people approve of it however if it comes down to our survival vs their survival guess where I'll side?
I also do not believe that it will come to that.
We cannot let political correctness get in the way of victory because in many cases it just endangers us and our troops more.

As far as how many muslims well its pretty obvious. A whole heck of a lot.

Originally posted by Powerboss


13 opportunies in all.

I go back to the fundamental argument of whether this terrorism thing should be proactive or reactive.
The left wants this to be a reactive issue, meaning hunt down the buggers after they committ attacks as opposed to the right who wants this to be a proactive issue, meaning hunting them down, attacking them, disrupting them, before they hit us, or at the least diminishing their capabilities to carry out missions, fund, and train.


I don't think anyone opposes a "pro-active" response. For instance I think that most leftists would have been happy if the federal authorities under the Bush administration had pursued and arrested the 9/11 hijackers before they killed 3,000 people. Instead they were arresting cancer patients in California for smoking cannabis, under the direct orders of Bush, as part of our other "war". Too bad he hadn't been more pro-active about stopping terrorism then, eh?

Originally posted by Powerboss

Yes, I've heard it too. I don't think you'll find most people approve of it however if it comes down to our survival vs their survival guess where I'll side?
I also do not believe that it will come to that.
We cannot let political correctness get in the way of victory because in many cases it just endangers us and our troops more.



The bottom line is that you admit many right-wingers would easily support killing everyone in the middle-east, even millions of women and children. You also know that fanatical right-wingers blew up a US Federal government building, committing the largest terrorist attack against the US until 9/11.

So again I ask, why are we not waging a war against white right-wingers?

I don't think anyone opposes a "pro-active" response. For instance I think that most leftists would have been happy if the federal authorities under the Bush administration had pursued and arrested the 9/11 hijackers before they killed 3,000 people. Instead they were arresting cancer patients in California for smoking cannabis, under the direct orders of Bush, as part of our other "war". Too bad he hadn't been more pro-active about stopping terrorism then, eh?


But your philosophy in dealing with terrorists as a law enforcement issue means that you can only respond until AFTER a crime has been committed.

The bottom line is that you admit many right-wingers would easily support killing everyone in the middle-east, even millions of women and children

I did not say many.

You also know that fanatical right-wingers blew up a US Federal government building, committing the largest terrorist attack against the US until 9/11.


What was Pearl Harbor?


So again I ask, why are we not waging a war against white right-wingers?

What crimes are they committing?
What pattern of crimes have they committed? Perhaps if there were a multitude of attacks by right-wingers spanning over a decade then it may be time to look a little more closely at right wingers.
Speech is not a crime, at least not yet and if the left doesn't get their way with all these "hate speech" laws they support.

Originally posted by Powerboss



But your philosophy in dealing with terrorists as a law enforcement issue means that you can only respond until AFTER a crime has been committed.



Not true. A group of people found to be actively engaged in plotting a terrorist attack can be prosecuted.


Originally posted by Powerboss
What was Pearl Harbor?





Pearl harbor was a military strike against a military target, and an act of war.

Originally posted by Powerboss

What crimes are they committing?
What pattern of crimes have they committed? Perhaps if there were a multitude of attacks by right-wingers spanning over a decade then it may be time to look a little more closely at right wingers.




Well what crime was comitted by Muslims dancing and cheering in the streets after the 9/11 attacks?

What crime is committed by Muslims who "supported" the 9/11 attacks by non-material means?

Simply believing that a crime was morally justified is not a crime in and of itself, and certainly not a reason to wage "war". If you think the fact that some uneducated Muslims thought that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing is a valid reason to wage global war, then you are the one who wants to prosecute thought crime and hate speech, not the left.

Not true. A group of people found to be actively engaged in plotting a terrorist attack can be prosecuted.

Fair enough. Why didn't it happen for over a decade?


Pearl harbor was a military strike against a military target, and an act of war.


What are the qualifiers for "an act of war"?

Well what crime was comitted by Muslims dancing and cheering in the streets after the 9/11 attacks?

What crime is committed by Muslims who "supported" the 9/11 attacks by non-material means?

No crimes but it gives us a good idea of how f'd up a sizable percentage of them are.

Simply believing that a crime was morally justified is not a crime in and of itself, and certainly not a reason to wage "war". If you think the fact that some uneducated Muslims thought that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing is a valid reason to wage global war, then you are the one who wants to prosecute thought crime and hate speech, not the left.

Who wants to wage global war?
I only want to kill the terrorists, their supporters, and the governments that aid, train, harbor, and fund them.

Originally posted by Powerboss


Fair enough. Why didn't it happen for over a decade?



Ask Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush

Originally posted by Powerboss

What are the qualifiers for "an act of war"?






A strike targeted at a military base by an organized military force certainly qualifies. Are you saying Pearl harbor was an act of terrorism and not an act of war?





Originally posted by Powerboss

No crimes but it gives us a good idea of how f'd up a sizable percentage of them are.





Yes, just as coments about nuking the whole middle-east gives us a good idea of how f'd up a sizable percentage of American rightists are.

Originally posted by Powerboss

I only want to kill the terrorists, their supporters, and the governments that aid, train, harbor, and fund them.




LOL, yeah right. And you think that Iraq was the source of more terrorism than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, etc. etc.?

No, of course you don't. Yet you have no problem with the way George Bush has handled the "war on terrorism" despite the fact that he has confronted none of these countries, in fact he calls them allies of America.


Wake up.

Ask Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush

Indeed.

A strike targeted at a military base by an organized military force certainly qualifies. Are you saying Pearl harbor was an act of terrorism and not an act of war?


Actually, I'd call it both.

Yes, just as coments about nuking the whole middle-east gives us a good idea of how f'd up a sizable percentage of American rightists are.

I do not believe you are correct in your charge of "sizable".


LOL, yeah right. And you think that Iraq was the source of more terrorism than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, etc. etc.?

No, of course you don't. Yet you have no problem with the way George Bush has handled the "war on terrorism" despite the fact that he has confronted none of these countries, in fact he calls them allies of America.


Don't you prefer that we "exhaust all resources" before going to war?
Isn't diplomacy supposed to be tried initially?
Isn't that what the left, including yourself, has been complaining about Bush not doing?



Which is it? Do you want diplomacy or do you want him to just drop bombs? Make up your bloody mind...........PLEASE!



The fact is that many of those countries have changed their attitudes and have reacted, some not as significant as others, some needing more pushing and coaxing.
The point is that by diplomacy we are getting some results and with more pushing, hopefully we will get even more results and avoid war, which is what I thought you wanted. Perhaps I was wrong.

Originally posted by Powerboss





Don't you prefer that we "exhaust all resources" before going to war?
Isn't diplomacy supposed to be tried initially?
Isn't that what the left, including yourself, has been complaining about Bush not doing?


Bush is not using diplomacy to dissuade terrorist-friendly actions by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia. He is calling them allies and pretending that there is no problem with those countries when in fact they are the top supporters of anti-American terrorism.

He smiles and shakes hands with the Saudi Royal family.

He lifted anti-nuclear sanctions against Pakistan in return for their "support" for the war against terrorism when in fact they are among the worst offenders.

Just face it PB, Bush's only criteria for "fighting terrorism" is where it's profitable and where there is a personal agenda involved (like assasination attempts against his daddy). If he was truly pursuing terrorist-supporting regimes according to threat level and past attack records, Iraq would have been 4th on the list at most.

This discussion has reached its end.

The facts don't matter to you. Your mind is already made up.

It is a fact that the Saudi's and others have begun helping us on this terrorism matter.
Diplomacy has worked. Hopefully more diplomacy will get us even more results and we can avoid war.

Originally posted by Powerboss

Isn't diplomacy supposed to be tried initially?
Isn't that what the left, including yourself, has been complaining about Bush not doing?



Oh, and incidentally, no I have never complained about Bush not using diplomacy.I guarantee you have never heard me talk of unilateralism or bypassing UN measures or any of that usual rhetoric.

My complaint is simple, and to my mind inarguable:

If Bush was truly interested in prosecuting a pre-emptive war against another country as a way to stop terrorism, then Iraq and even Afghanistan would not be the best choice. Saudi Arabia would be, followed by Pakistan or Iran, then two or three other countries, then finally Iraq, perhaps.

This is obvious to anyone with common sense, so it proves that Bush's motives are not as he says.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator
LOL What does THIS have to do with having a well equipped military to USE in case of that last option?
- "in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force"


Ah, and PB, I'd like to see your definition of the word "terrorism".

This should be fun :D

Originally posted by I don't know

- "in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force"


ROFL "Don't have a well equipped military because we're paranoid about you using it."

Get a grip.

Ah, and PB, I'd like to see your definition of the word "terrorism".

Communism, Despotism, Socialism, Liberalsim, Anarchism, Islamic Radicals, Extreme leftist Norweigan teenagers.

Get a grip.

How can you expect him to?
He believes the US is a terrorist state.