scott_harpell

Do you seriosuly think that Iraq would go the western capitolist way that Russia went? Give me a break. The next step for Iraq was for Uday and Qusay to run a joint reign of terror that made Saddam's reign look like a re-run of the teletubbies.

That is loaded and hyperbolized question, but I will bite. I do think that in the long run it will save many lives.

No, he was not for the war. Read everything he said, again. He voted to give the president authority to go to war. He's not against the war now. He wants to end the war, just like Bush does: successfully. (What else is there to do?) He's against going to war when we don't have to. We're fighting a war in Iraq, like it or not, so that qualifies as "have to". You're trying to skew everything Kerry says into black-and-white categories, which doesn't make sense. So you tell me what Kerry thought would happen if he gave Bush poser to invade Iraq. Give me a fucking break. Of course he was going to go in there. How do you think there was going to be a regime change? Do you think he was just gonna ask Saddam to leave? Get real man. What do you think he was thinking if he didn't think we were going to war?

You need to read up on Soviet history there chappy. Khrushchev and Brezhnev's attempts to create a new socialism (based on the apparent failure of theold system) was followed by Glasnost and Perestroika as more flailing attempts by Gorbachev to fix the falling star. This is not propaganda. Why do you think that a couple million people holding hands in the Baltic we able to acheive freedom without a single shot being fired? The star was dying.

Yes but the fact remains that fi he were president 4 years ago it is likely we would still be at war with Iraq; unless all he sid was mere lip service to gain moderate voters in this upcomming election. He only changed his story after the rise of the insurgency. How do you explain that. He was for the war and there is no escaping that. He is now against the war and is an "anti-war candidate." How do you rectify this discrepancy?

You can't do this without declaring war on a nation. Think about it. You are bombing on their soil. Soon enough the republican army would be shooting at our planes (even more than they already did) and all out war would have happened anyways.

I am also worried about the billions of dollars and thousands that died as a result of non-action in a mere couple of hours.

But at what cost? IYO: when is the cost to great? In terms of what? I think the cost of doing nothing in the long run far outweighs the 1000 troops we have lost. Our inactions in the past cost 3,000 civilians their lives because we failed to move sooner.

I prefer my own fact checking... The Soviet regime was a failing one. It was clear. Especially the last 25-30 years it was merely going through the motions. I think prior to that we utilized them on both fronts of the War, so I think your position on this is quite ridiculous.

I am still waiting to know what you would have done. You have not given me a response. You can mock Bush all you want but until you have a better idea, you are the retarded kid making fun of the kid with ADD.

Hell with that man. The gauntlet was thrown and as far as I am concerned, Saddam wanted a war with the U.S. If you want shit to stop getting started, maybe you should start with the peopl who are cutting off the heads of civilians with a 4 inch blade while they are still alive and seding copies aroudn the internet. We could be more like Italy and bow down to the likes of terorists. Is that what you all want? To be a bitch of some 3rd world fanatacist?!? I pity you if you do.

Hey ChucK. How about you try and tell me why you think that just because something is hard, we should keep from doing it. Everyone sid we couldn't beat the red-coats and look at us today. If we have a president that is dedicated to winning this thing, we will do it. If you want to be a pessimist about it then fine. If this pessimism has roots in your partisanship then I ask you to use your brain. This is a very important war that I am glad we embarked upon regardless of the reasons we went to war. There are enough reasons for me and just because another nation is "more deserving" of a good old fashioned ass whooping I still stand behind this war and know that we will win.

Why are you bringing this up any ways slothrop?

So what are you going to do? Let every evil unchecked because few have been able to beat geurillas in their own backyard? Well I say that if anyone can do it, we can and we will do it. We WILL be safer and the World will know that our threats are not idle.

...and that is what we really need. SOmeone who will start shit and then leave it by the way-side when it becomes unpopular for his base.

-His first position was the he wanted to go to war with Iraq -His second was that he wanted to threaten Saddam with force -His third position was that he would have done "everything differently" from Bush. I have the quote if you want it, but I have posted it before.

Sure would, but this isn't kindergarden. We got some seriously fucked up people that hate any thing and everything. You can either take care of this shit or you can wait until you have to.

If you use it, and fail, then you're really screwed. You have less than nothing. That's why you don't roll the dice unless you have to. Well we didn't have to in Yugoslavia or Kuwait or Afghanistan now did we?

If you use it, and fail, then you're really screwed. You have less than nothing. That's why you don't roll the dice unless you have to. That is why you fucking win. Which is what we are going to do.

A victory for the invading nation delayed

This makes no fucking sense. What are you talking about?

works if no-one hits.

Pathetic. You don't even know your own candidate.

According to your boy Clinton, Yugoslavia was.

That's it. Cite! This is totally hyperbolic crap and you know it.