Quote from max401:
Do you?
Your whole post is based on the premise, that a democratic president has more important things to do then protecting and defending the nation, that a democrat will always flip-flop, hesitate, agonize, endlessly seek UN approval etc.Quote from catmango:
You think way too highly of Nader and Kerry. I can tell you exactly what would've happened: Kerry/Nader would lobby hard for a resolution in the UN to denounce the Taliban
The support of Tony Blair also shows, that in war and peace situations party affiliation is irrelevant.When american citizens are detained for months or years without charges its a violation of if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the constitutuion. I do not have problem having them jailed or executed after they are convicted, I have a problem with people disappearing without a trial.For all the vacuous complaints that have been made of the Patriot Act (which passed 98-1 in the Senate) as "trampling on the Constitution" I have yet to hear of any egregious cases of civil liberties violations. Please, somebody help me and point to specific substantiated complaints that have arisen directly from the administration of the Patriot Act. As for the budget deficit, they are normal during times of recessions and wars. Plus, the way I view wartime deficits is that it's simply the amortization of the costs of addressing today's problems over multiple generations, since all future generations benefit from shutting down terrorism today.
You are missing the point, the issue is not whether it's a long term project, it sure is. The issue is whether we're on the right track, whether with each passed day, each billion spent, and each soldier killed we're getting any closer to our objectives. Unfortunately I see no evidence of that.Of course the jury's still out! This is a long term project that requires patience and determination. To think that Al Qaeda would've been stamped out by now is way too unrealistic
Now you've added other options. So the choices now are; Bush & Co. were ignorant; stupid; or complicit. Which are you arguing for after "reading the newspapers, and listening to FOX news?"Quote from ARogueTrader:
Would you think Bush and Company was ignorant, stupid, or complicit to the drug business and the flow of money to terrorists?
Quote from max401:
Now you've added other options. So the choices now are; Bush & Co. were ignorant; stupid; or complicit. Which are you arguing for after "reading the newspapers, and listening to FOX news?"
Why haven't we simply gone to South America and burned all the coca plants, say 30 years ago. It could be that that Gerald Ford was both stupid, ignorant, and complicit.Quote from ARogueTrader:
Geez.
Do you mean am I arguing that Bush and company was either:
1. Stupid
2. Ignorant
3. Complicit
no, I am not necessarily arguing any one of the three, I don't know what they were thinking. Do you? It could be that Bush is both stupid, ignorant, and complicit.
I do think the situation begs a question deserving an answer, don't you? Wouldn't it make sense to stop any activity that helps to fund Al Queda?
Do you have any other ideas why we didn't finish the job?
Maybe you are among those who believe we needed to get Saddam and all those WMD that were such a grave danger to the entire world so we didn't fishish the job.
Well, Bush declared Victory, so why are we not back in Afghanistan burning poppy fields?
Quote from dddooo:
When american citizens are detained for months or years without charges its a violation of if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the constitutuion. I do not have problem having them jailed or executed after they are convicted, I have a problem with people disappearing without a trial.
The confinement of Jose Padilla parallels cases in both WWll when 8 German pre sabatouers (one an American citizen) were arrested and EXECUTED here in the U.S. War is hell! Read the following link about Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/476.html
Regarding the budget deficit, its kind of ironic, you're using the war as an excuse, when the war related expenses are not even included in the budget. At any rate, when the country is at war and the surpluses turned into huge deficits, the tax cuts policy must have been reviewed. It's indeed normal to run budget deficit during wars but its the first time in history when the government cuts taxes during a war. And if he did decide to cut taxes he should have at least made sure that it's used to create jobs in this country, not in China and India.
Have you considered that Clinton's reluctance to cut taxes during the 1998 global crisis imported the recession to America. Long Bond yields are dramatically lower now than during the balanced budget Clinton years. The Treasury market is not concerned about the present deficits.
Besides the clear fact that the lower tax rates and stimulant spending led to a a shallow post 9/11 recession, there is also too little debate about the morality of high tax rates. Those Commie bastards in Russia now have a 15% flat tax. The U.S. is NOT a socialist country. Our tax rates should reflect our historical commitment to free enterprise and self advancement. Upward mobility is hammered by taxation. Why do you think so many rich guys want high taxes. Kerry, Kennedy, Buffet and Soros have NO earned income. They don't want YOU to have a chance at being as rich as they are.
You are missing the point, the issue is not whether it's a long term project, it sure is. The issue is whether we're on the right track, whether with each passed day, each billion spent, and each soldier killed we're getting any closer to our objectives. Unfortunately I see no evidence of that.
Our objectives are to eradicate terror. That goal extends beyond the Taliban. It means attempting to implement democracy everywhere in the most instable region imaginable. Hell it may even mean breaking up the House of Saud as well. I've never been crazy about the war but in my heart I know this action was necessary. Funny how Libya, Iran and Syria have toned down.

Quote from max401:
Why haven't we simply gone to South America and burned all the coca plants, say 30 years ago. It could be that that Gerald Ford was both stupid, ignorant, and complicit.
Do you have any other ideas why we didn't finish the job?
I do think the situation begs a question deserving an answer, don't you?