Do you honestly think they (a terrorist network) would openly do that? I never stated which party it would be the only question posed was who do you think the terrorist would rather see in office? If you were a terrorist Reg which party would you rather see in office and why?
No, I don't think that they would say they were rooting for one side or the other. What I meant by that is it seems to be to be a ridiculous statement because terrorists are concerned with their cause or crusade...whatever it may be...and I don't think it matters a hoot to them who's president. I don't think they root for a Democrat because he'll go easier on them. You may not have stated what party the terrorists might root for but I believe it's implied that you believe the option they prefer is Democrat. The Right and the talk show guys love that line and it's a joke. Nothing supports that.
If I were a terrorist I wouldn't care who was president I would be working on forwarding my agenda. I think that you seem to be saying that "terrorists fear Bush because he went after them" and that you believe a Republican is more likely to use military force. This is not true though if you look at history Clinton and Kennedy had no issue flexing a little military muscle. The example the right loves is Carter...always Carter...you can't build a case on one man though. Take a fair look over our long history and you'll see Democrats don't have an issue using our military. You seem to be basing this idea on this false stereotype created and promoted by the Right. That's not accurate.
I think on the whole the sentiment is that the right is hell of a lot more decisive in their support of military than on the left. Would you argue that the Democrats are willing to spend as much on support of defense than the Republicans?
Yes, I would argue that the Democrats will spend on defense. In fact our country spends more on defense than any country on the planet...times 10. You can combine the defense budgets of the rest of the countries in the world and they would not add up to half of ours. Seems insane doesn't it? I don't think the question is will they spend it's how do they spend it? See that whole "democrats won't spend on defense" idea is also a Republican myth. If you at this countries defense budget through the years every administration has poured billions upon billions into defense. The question though is where did that money go? We don't need to argue who'll spend more...we need to argue who'll spend better.
Right now Bushco wants to build smaller nukes we can use because our old nukes are too big and create too much devastation. Do you think that's a wise place to put our defense dollars? Paying corporations to develop WMD's we can actually unleash on some third world country? You've got a son Pat. You want him growing up in a world where the use of nukes on our fellow human beings becomes common place? Yeah, the Bush folks may be interested in spending more and R&D for mini-nukes would cost a shitload but so what if we can better spend the money.
Don’t you find it odd Reg that Bush is despised and not the terrorist themselves?
They (the terrorists) make supposed attacks in retaliation to something we do and the press has a field day with Bush not the terrorist. It’s like how dare you piss these people off just look at what they will do! News flash for the world! They are going to do it anyway at some point no matter what we do.
I don't find it odd but I think they hate the terrorists more than they hate Bush. I think people around the world though believe that Bush and his administration went on a joyride and stirred up a hornets nest they were not capable of dealing with and had no stategy to deal with. They just wanted to get Iraq. There wasn't a big outcry when we went to Afganistan. It wasn't until Bushco told the world "Now we want Iraq too and if you're not with us you're against us!" that the shit really hit the fan. Then they pissed on the UN and told them it was raining and pissed on France and Germany. Bushco chose that path so I'm not surprised when the world press kicks back. I think they'd rather be rid of the terrorists but that's hard to do and so far...maybe not here in the United States but in the rest of the world...terrorist activity is way up and I believe Bush is getting the blame. They have not made the world safer. They may have improved airport security but little else has been done.
So killing them on their own soil, dissecting them piece by piece, leader by leader, is not going to prevent them from attacking us on our own soil?
Do you think it's odd that we focused on Iraq, a country we knew the terrorists weren't in, for 2002 and 2003 and now in 2004 (an election year) we have renewed our interest in hunting down Osama and Al Qaeda? We gave these guys two years to run around, plan, and make mayhem while we focused on Saddam...who maybe some of his people saw as a terrorist but clearly had nothing to do with 9/11. So, I'm not sure Bushco has followed your outline of hunting them down etc...I would think we'd want as many of them alive as possible so we can squeeze them for info of what they are planning. If we get Osama we want the guy alive I'd say...that makes him most useful.
Is that anyone on the left will tell you or anyone in general? That’s saying there are not two sides to this Reg and of course you know there are.
Well, I suppose you're correct here and it's mostly anyone on the left. I think there are those on the right as well though that would say it. There are several sides to every story that's true...and all we can do is try to find the one we believe is most accurate.
Not true. You call them myths propagated by the right I call them observations I’ve made over the last 25 years starting with the Iranian hostage crisis.
Well, I guess I'd say don't base all your thoughts on the Democrats on Carter and Clinton. I don't base all my thoughts on Republicans on the Bushies and Reagan. We can do better on both sides.
