because of 9/11. if rogue states are allowed to harbor terrorists, it hurts us.

of course. you shold have said all along that you simply oppose the iraq war, which we all know is only marginally related to the "war on terror". the iraq war is an extension of a war that started in 1991.

i am all for being more aggressive with pakistan. if you are as well, great. of course we both know that your statemen of opposition to the concept of the war on terror was just you midlessly repeating something you heard, not a real viewpoint.

bush/cheney have said all along that iraq is not related to al-queda and such, it is just a separate war that had been on the back burner for 12 years and needed to be handled.

my bad i was actually referring to lsi-i-like, not obama. so far i strongly approve of obama's policies, which are basically more of the bush policies. whether he uses the term "war on terror" is not relevant to me.

(i mean obama's foreign policy. his domestic policy is the worst in history)

whether obama says it or not, he is doing a decent job fighting the "war on terror".

but he isnt perfect, i definitely oppose closing guantanamo and i think bush would be better overall, mostly because he has the credibility to threaten north korea, if that becomes necessary, which i dont think it will.

Sorry, forgot the sarcasm alert. I'll rate your sarcasm perceptibility somewhere between a C and F. :hihi:

You like big government when it comes to foreign affairs. Got it. Strange how a government can be singularly suited for foreign issues while performing abominably on domestic issues. I'm not so sure.

The "war on terror" was deliberately used by Bush and was used in relation to Iraq. I'm not buying into that and I'm not buying into the mindset that we shoot first and ask questions later, which is what I relate to the "war on terror". We aren't in a war in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are carrying out military operations but as far as I know Congress has never voted to declare war.

I think saying we are in a war with drugs is a reckless and impotent statement and I feel the same about "the war on terror". Not because, "Hee hee, we can't be at war with a concept," but because it sets the wrong mindset in dealing with whatever it is that "war" is declared upon.

Rimshot, please. I'm not midlessly bleating anything.

Huh, revisionist history here.

Quite a litmus test for a president to pass. This comment has the air of a Stewart/Maher rant.

war and infrastructure, thats the point of our government. always has been.

shoot first? did we shoot first when iraq invaded our pals in kuwait and ignored the our cease fire agreements for 12 years? did we "shoot first" against al queda?

i know that if you poll people, they will say they thought iraq was related bin laden. but that is because people are stupid, not because cheney says it. cheney says the opposite. and the press loves to beat it into our heads that the iraq war was framed as related to 9/11 (which it is, but only marginally). the problem is that folks like you are far too into media perception and terminology and not the reality of what policy is, what our leaders are saying.

why would it be relevant what we call the policy? the policy is what it is, agree with it or dont. we are at war in those places whether the proper person tells you we are or not.

the "drug war" is stupid whether it is technically a "war" or not. try to focus on policy, not terminology.

when i said that to you earlier, i knew it would be so accurate that it would hurt a little. cant blame you for hitting me back with it, even though it doesnt work with a person like me whose views are wildly divergent from those folks. you did your best.

War, or "war"? Because they are two different things, and one of the two is very open-ended.

I do wonder if starting a military operation with Iraq the first time was our best course of action or not. I've already said I support going after Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration let the American people know that in the middle of our hunt for bin Laden we would go ahead and start a second unrelated military operation that had nothing or almost nothing to do with terrorism? On top of that, was that a prudent course of action? I don't think so. This was done under the guise of "the global war on terrorism" and to argue otherwise is disingenuous. Not to mention a bad call. Which is why I disagree with "the war on terrorism".

Words play a huge role in politics. Politicians are there to serve the people, but words are used to sway people's opinions all the time. Many of those words are closer to propaganda than intellectual honesty.

I pretty much agree.

Uh huh. Paraphrasing martin... We're better off with a crazy president because he is unpredictable. Pretty cutesy.

funny, i dont even see em. disabled those a year or so ago.

ri

I've been arguing this point for years. Saddam thumbed his nose at UN sanctions for 12 years but everybody brushed it off. After 9/11, no one, including liberals and Democrats were wsilling to continue to put up with his snub and they all wholeheartedly agreed it was time to go in and take his a$$ out.

too much t&a for work viewing