And who did we "get" as a result of the strike against Afghanistan? Answer: Nobody of any importance, while at the same time we coddled the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and others who have far greater links to international terror. The duplicity and shortsightedness is unbelievable. Maybe India or Pakistan should follow the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and see who can be most macho, and be the first to lob nukes at the other? Perhaps any other nation who feels threatened by the US should strike us first, according to the Bush doctrine? It is the Bush doctrine that will bring war to our shores.
We "got" many leaders of AQ and kicked out the Taliban regime. Without the Pakistani's, we'd have a logisitical problem with invasion and an information problem as to the inner workings of Al Qaeda.
Your pre-emption argument is absurd. You are comparing rogue regimes with the United States...and any such comparison is unacceptable. For all your talk of understanding the complexities of geopolitics, you then turn around and simplify the India-Pakistan situation to "Mommy...he jumped of the bridge...so can I!". Please. It's not the same situation.
No they are not. Although the Taliban may not be the recognized governmental power in Afghanistan..they havent gone anywhere. In fact they are recruiting, as we speak. The Karzai government is a joke...it has virtually no executive power outside of Kabul. The warlords rule the rest of the country, womens' rights are a little better, but in Kabul only, outside of there, little has changed; opium production is at record levels (as predicted by Mike Ruppert shortly after 9-11), and US troops are being killed there in larger numbers than during the invasion in November 2001. Karzai is the "Mayor of Kabul" and thats about as far as his real influence goes.
This paragraph you posted is filled with the typical suppositions and rhetoric I've come to expect from you. The Taliban do not rule the nation, and things for women are A LOT better...not to mention men. Of course the Taliban have not been exterminated. If that had happened, you'd be screaming that Bush was comitting genocide. As for Karzai's influence, you'd have to provide some real backing for that claim.
f only it could be successful, but killing over 11,000 civilians, destroying their infrastructure, their heritage and antiquities, selling off their assets to western corporations at rock bottom prices, torturing their prisoners, and showing blatant disdain and disregard for their customs and traditions has made the US look like a boorish, thuggish enemy as far as most Iraqis go.
More bullshit. Even if true, civilians are sometimes killed in war. It's unfortunate and we try to avoid it. Grow up.
We did not target their infastructure as we did in 1991. We've poured billions into rebuilding the country. We have not acted with total disregard for their customs. In other words, you're blatantly wrong.
A recent coalition poll told the sorry story of 3% of Iraqis looking favorably on the occupation. What a joke! If "democracy", "freedom" and a "decent standard of living" was the US aim in Iraq, then why did the new Iraqi puppet government just declare martial law yesterday?
I'd like to see that poll. I also saw one that says 89% of Iraqis are willing to work with the interim government. That poll was recently conducted by Baghdad University.
You're also wrong about Martial Law. They approved a policy to allow emergency law to be imposed if needed. They've got a serious security situation...what would you like to do instead?
Regarding "liberation", what about all the poor oppressed people in nations all around Iraq which are monarchies or Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships with ghastly human rights records? You approve? Does Bush approve? What do say about invading those nations as well? After all...it was people from Saudi, Egypt, the UAE and Yemen who (according to the FBI), slammed those planes into our buildings, and they haven't been brought to task in one tiny, miniscule fashion. (6 Yemenis have just been charged with attacking the USS Cole). Not a single ambassador from those nations was carpeted after the attacks. And we react by invading the two nations which had the laest involvement, for other reasons no doubt.
Wait...what are you advocating..invading those countries too? I'm not. There is no evidence of any kind that those governments were involved or were a direct threat to the US or its allies. Saudi Arabia has a horrible human rights record and I agree...but what should we do? Should we stop buying their oil? OK...I'm on board with that. Where would you like to get it from. Oh, right..I forgot...you're a leftist so you oppose drilling ANWR, offshore and anything that has the letters O-I-L in it.
While Bush and big government spending go hand in hand:
Now that's just cheap. I agree Bush is a big spender. I fault him for most of it. How many times must I present this honest criticism, and can you show how this has hurt the economy?
PBA is very rare btw, but better done in a clinic than in a shed with a coathanger. Whats your thoughts on stem cell research
So your argument is that because it's "very rare" (which you have not supported) that it should be legal? You further argue that this very rare procedure (and therefore not in demand by women) will be carried out en masse in "sheds"?
I support Bush's position on Stem Cell research. Life should not be created and then destroyed. Bush's position is to continue to fund and allow research on existing stem cell lines.
Galvanized opposition all over the US and the world, and increased awareness of political realities amongst the young.... there is more to life than skateboarding. Maybe the democrats will become a real party representing the left of center, as opposed to "republican lite". Maybe they will become proud of the moniker "liberal", instead of wimping out. Maybe they will become relevant again.
A over-simplistic analogy: What happens to an eagle with a broken left wing, and a right wing thats flapping wildly out of control? It starts to go round in circles and lose altitude faster and faster, until it hits the ground with a sickening thud.....
Cute Sammi...cute. so your solution is that we need to become more liberal. This despite a clear trend within the Republican Party to become more liberal on social issues and federal spending. You don't seem to understand! The Republicans have become what the Democrats were in the 1930's and 1940's. They've become the party of FDR. They've not just assumed control of the agenda...they've stolen it.
The Democrats will not succeed until they truly come to the center. They will have to do what the Republicans have done in the past 10 years. They will have to support an aggressive foreign policy, a strong military/pro-national security agenda, limited federal spending and policy of smaller government.
Until they do that, it's only going to get worse for them. If the Dems lose big in this election, the current Clintonite V. Deananic squirmish will look like a love fest. The party will go into a full civil war and complete tail spin.