Poll - Democrat or Republican?

[mousecrazy 2]

The battle is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other places, and was started by repeated terrorist attacks on American citizens and military by various terrorist associations, mostly Al Qaeda. It is no longer a war against another country/countries.

The ideology of Naziism, most effectively popularized and lead by Adolf Hitler, is similar in some respects to the ideology of Jihadist Islam, most effectively popularized and lead by Osama bin Laden.

Saying that President Bush started this war would be like saying President Roosevelt started World War II. Once our nation has been attacked, and repeatedly, then we must protect our nation. Because it is an ideological enemy, and not a nation, the battle is complicated and amorphous. I admire President Bush for recognizing the nature of the threat and standing firm in his committment in facing it.

How would we view President Roosevelt now, if he had decided not to defend the country, and especially if he had decided not to liberate most of Western Europe, and save many in concentration camps from certain death?

Who among us likes war? I do not, but believe it is righteous and necessary, much as defending your little sister or brother from a bully is righteous and necessary. That's a simplistic explanation, but I think it is relevant.

I am proud that my DD understands that there are Americans who are brave and courageous and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. That is in absolutely no way shameful. It is heroic and admirable and thank God for those men and women.

BJean, specifically to you, I am sorry you feel personally attacked or abused by an opposing point of view. Yet, in your post complaining about that, you continue to use terms like Georgie-porgie, and BuSh, which simply ARE disrespectful and ARE ad-hominem attacks. Like you, I did not go back through and read everything, but I do not believe that those on the liberal/left are un-Christian or un-patriotic; however, they DO most certainly have a different perspective, and one with which I do not agree. I do not succeed 100% of the time, but I do try to keep my language neutral, and present reasons for my opinion. I think one does need to support one's opinions...otherwise, what value do they have? Anyone can say any emotionally-based thing, without logic or reason, and without even understanding it. When asked to provide some evidence, it would be a mistake to take that as a personal attack. It is a simple requirement of discussion and debate.

[green 6]

Clinton had oral sex with another consenting adult, one who was not his wife. How did that affect the United States? How should that have affected anyone other than his own family? Indeed it was the Republicans that opened up this to the general public with the help of the taxpayers' money.

BuSh chose to enter into a war with a country that did not have strong ties with al Qaeda, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. He chose to do this unilaterally against the advice of the international community. The result has been that the American economy is in ruins, many people are dead or damaged, and the Middle East is now destabilized. Iran, a religious state and one that is openly hostile to the West, was held in check by its natural enemy, Iraq. Now Iraq is in disarray and Iran claims to be developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And America's status in the international arena has fallen to an all-time low.

How does the damage that this president has done compare to Clinton's lousy blow job?

[BJean 16]

Yes Green. And you didn't even mention the enormous amount of money that the Republicans spent trying to discredit Clinton from the moment he took office.

I haven't directed any insults or injury to you, mousecrazy, and I won't even go there in spite of the fact that you used my name in your post.

I am really, really disgusted by the devious means with which this President has achieved his personal goals and I resent tremendously that lives have been lost and injuries that have been incurred because of him.

I don't like the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center. I don't understand their mindset and I hope that we can continue to thwart their plans to kill Americans, frighten Americans and generally wreak havoc on our way of life.

I will never believe that thwarting terrorist activities was achieved by our bombing and presence in Iraq. There is just way too much evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand why people continue to beat the dead horse after the flies are circling.

[Carlene 12]

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These recruits, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces.

After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight elsewhere (including Bosnia) and comprise the basis of al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden also studied with radical Islamic thinkers and may have already been organizing al-Qaeda when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Bin Laden was outraged when the government allowed U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. In 1991 he was expelled from Saudi Arabia for anti-government activities.

After his expulsion from Saudi Arabia, bin Laden established headquarters for al-Qaeda in Sudan. The first actions of al-Qaeda against American interests were attacks on U.S. servicemen in Somalia. A string of terrorist actions suspected to have been orchestrated by al-Qaeda followed, and in August 1996 bin Laden issued a "Declaration of War" against the U.S.

Al-Qaeda also worked to forge alliances with other radical groups. In February 1998, bin Laden announced an alliance of terrorist organizations—the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders".

In 1994 Sudan—under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—expelled bin Laden, who moved his base of operations to Afghanistan. Bin Laden was the "guest" of the Taliban until the U.S. drove them from power in Nov. 2001. Al-Qaeda set up terrorist training camps in the war-torn nation, as it had in Sudan.

Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.

Al-Qaeda differs significantly from more traditional terrorist organizations. It does not depend on the sponsorship of a political state, and, unlike the PLO or the IRA, it is not defined by a particular conflict. Instead, al-Qaeda operates as a franchise. It provides financial and logistical support, as well as name recognition, to terrorist groups operating in such diverse places as the Philippines, Algeria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kashmir. Furthermore, local groups may act in the name of al-Qaeda in order to bolster their own reputation—even if they are not receiving support from the organization.

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 religious decree, it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

.

In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to dismantle al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda's infrastructure in the country was destroyed and their military commander, Muhammed Atef, was killed. Abu Zubaydah, another top operative, was captured in Pakistan. Bin Laden escaped and is presumed alive.

In March 2003 the U.S. widened the war on terrorism by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein and his Baath party. The decision to encompass Iraq in "the war on terror" has been highly controversial. Although President Bush asserted that there was a working relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, no solid proof of collaboration between them—specifically on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or on any other terrorist activities—has emerged.

In recent years, many of the most horrific bombings attributed to al-Qaeda—most notably Bali, Madrid, and London—are believed to have been carried out by terrorist groups linked more in spirit than in substance to al-Qaeda. Al-Zarqawi, the most active terrorist in recent years, for example, only officially joined al-Qaeda in the years after he initiated his reign of terror in Iraq. Al-Qaeda has been more than happy to take credit for the various bombings, but it is thought that it has offered philosophical motivation more than a direct support for the atrocities committed by these splinter groups. While al-Qaeda encourages its reputation as a vast global network, many experts believe that at this stage al-Qaeda itself has just a small core of adherents, but serves as the virulent inspiration to countless violent Islamic extremists.

[green 6]

This is a most interesting post, Carlene. Thanks.

[Carlene 12]

This is a most interesting post, Carlene. Thanks.

You're welcome. I just thought it should be pointed out that not everything that LOOKS like al-Qaeda really IS al-Qaeda. And it is virtually impossible to wage war against all the various terrorist groups, aligned with al-Qaeda or not. We tried...we failed....time to bring the troops home and try something else. Even Bush knows this; why else would he fire Rumsfeld?

There is no "war on terrorism". It does not exist. It's just a rally cry for political cohesion. There was no "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc. I think the next one should be a "war on stupidity".

[mousecrazy 2]

The above 5 posts explain perfectly why conservatives quit posting.

[green 6]

You're welcome. I just thought it should be pointed out that not everything that LOOKS like al-Qaeda really IS al-Qaeda. And it is virtually impossible to wage war against all the various terrorist groups, aligned with al-Qaeda or not. We tried...we failed....time to bring the troops home and try something else. Even Bush knows this; why else would he fire Rumsfeld?

There is no "war on terrorism". It does not exist. It's just a rally cry for political cohesion. There was no "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc. I think the next one should be a "war on stupidity".

Oh yeah, the wars on.... I believe that I have mentioned in at least one previous post my mistrust of sloganeering. I was kinda lucky. My father who had come from a hated minority (he was Jewish) and was a survivor of war-torn Europe taught me when I was very young to distrust all political slogans, whether they originate from the left, right or the middle of the political spectrum.

It seems that many Americans are satisfied when their government announces that they are launching a war on something or other. What does this actually mean, however? If, for instance, the war on drugs means that those individuals who use marijuana, a widely used soft drug and one that is no more malign in its effects than alcohol, are clogging up the legal system, diverting manpower who would be better served elsewhere, and that pursuing these individuals is proving to be expensive for the taxpayer, well then, ya kinda got to wonder where the sense is in this war.

And what about this war on poverty? How do you propose to win the war on poverty? It strikes me that this issue of poverty is exceedingly complex. There are those who fall into the category of the deserving poor and these are individuals who were doing okay but who stumbled into a pit of bad luck. In this category are women who have married the wrong men and who are now single mothers. There are also families whose primary breadwinners have seen their jobs outsourced to developing countries. And there are families where a member, possibly the breadwinner, has fallen ill, either to a physical or a mental disease. But there are many of you who choose not to recognise that this category of poor might exist. You don't want to be taxed. You figure that the poor are not your problem. (If God actually liked these guys they wouldn't have become poor in the first place.)

Oh yah, and then there are the bums, the people who are lazy, shiftless and no-good, and who have been living off the rest of us for generations now. How should we proceed in our treatment of the poor? (It might be logical to convert these bums into pet food but I don't think that this will be allowed.)

And what about the war on terrorism? The invasion of Afghanistan made a certain amount of sense. Afghanistan was sheltering a number of cells of al Qaeda and refused to give these up. It should be noted that our friend, Pakistan, has regions that are rife with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their supporters. It would have made more sense to attack these regions of Pakistan than to have invaded Iraq.

[Carlene 12]

And what about the war on terrorism? The invasion of Afghanistan made a certain amount of sense. Afghanistan was sheltering a number of cells of al Qaeda and refused to give these up. It should be noted that our friend, Pakistan, has regions that are rife with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their supporters. It would have made more sense to attack these regions of Pakistan than to have invaded Iraq.

Notice the lack of ties to Iraq in the following list:

Captured

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A Kuwaiti who is the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He is also believed to have personally executed Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in January 2002. Captured in Pakistan in March 2003.

Abu Zubaida. A Palestinian born in Saudi Arabia, thought to have served as Osama bin Laden's field commander following the death of Mohammed Atef. Captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

Ramzi Binalshibh. A Yemeni national and an alleged coordinator of the September 11 attacks, accused of involvement in attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000 and on a Tunisian synagogue in April 2002.

Captured in Pakistan in September 2002.

Omar al-Faruq. A Kuwaiti and an alleged link between al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups in Southeast Asia. He was arrested in Indonesia in June 2002.

Mohsen F. A Kuwaiti whose full identity is unknown, plotted unsuccesfully to blow up a hotel in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa. Arrested in Kuwait in November 2002.

Hambali, aka Riduan Issamuddin. An Indonesian, reportedly a top strategist for Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia. Captured in Thailand in August 2003.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. A Saudi thought to be al Qaeda's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf. Captured in the United Arab Emirates in November 2002.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. A Tanzanian suspected in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Captured in Pakistan in July 2004.

Abu Issa al-Hindi. A British national born in India, allegedly a central planner of detailed reconnaissance of U.S. financial institutions. Captured in Britain in August 2004.

Zacarias Moussaoui. A French citizen of Moroccan origin, thought by U.S. officials to be the "20th 9/11 hijacker." Reportedly prevented from participating in the September 11 attacks because he was in custody in Minnesota on an immigration violation.

Mounir al-Motassadek. A Moroccan arrested in Hamburg in November 2001, the only person to have been convicted of a crime connected to the 9/11 attacks. In 2004, Germany's Supreme Court threw out the verdict. Currently being retried.

Richard Reid. British-born, sentenced to life in prison in January 2003 for trying to blow up an airliner with explosives hidden in his shoes.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. A Saudi believed to have been head of Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf and linked to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Sentenced to death by a Yemeni court in September 2004 for the bomb attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors in October 2000. Currently in U.S. custody.

Believed dead

Amjad Farooqi. A Pakistani, allegedly helped organize two failed assassination attempts on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and participated in the abduction and murder of Daniel Pearl. Reportedly killed by Pakistani security forces in September 2004.

Mohammed Atef. An Egyptian believed to have been al Qaeda's senior field commander. According to the Pentagon, he was killed in Afghanistan in November 2001.

Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi. A Yemeni suspected of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole. Believed to have been killed in a U.S. counterterrorist operation in Yemen in November 2002.

Abu Hazim al-Shair. A Yemeni and former bin Laden bodyguard thought to have been al Qaeda's chief of operations for the Gulf States and a key planner of the May 2003 bombings of Western residential compounds in Saudi Arabia. Reportedly killed in Riyadh by Saudi security forces in March 2004.

At large

Osama bin Laden.

Sheikh Said. A Saudi, bin Laden's brother-in-law, and al Qaeda's financial controller.

Saif al-Adel. An Egyptian who is bin Laden's security chief.

Abu Mohammed al-Masri. An Egyptian who ran Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. A Kuwaiti and Qaeda spokesman.

Thirwat Salah Shirhata. An Egyptian and al-Zawahri's deputy in Egyptian Islamic Jihad, an Egyptian network founded in the late 1970s that effectively merged with al Qaeda in 2001.

Abu Faraj al Libbi. A Libyan said to have become third in command of al Qaeda when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. Allegedly the mastermind of two failed attempts to assassinate Pakistani President Musharraf.

[BJean 16]

Well I don't blame anyone with an opposing opinion for backing away from this forum. What can one possibly say to defend the actions of the man holding the highest position in the most powerful nation on earth?

Somebody's been listening to all the talking heads' spin and have bought it hook, line and sinker.

[Carlene 12]

We aren't the only ones...

From today's MSNBC news:

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted after the election indicates that Americans’ approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq has dropped to just 31 percent — the lowest level ever.

[lisah25 3]

The battle is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other places, and was started by repeated terrorist attacks on American citizens and military by various terrorist associations, mostly Al Qaeda. It is no longer a war against another country/countries.

The ideology of Naziism, most effectively popularized and lead by Adolf Hitler, is similar in some respects to the ideology of Jihadist Islam, most effectively popularized and lead by Osama bin Laden.

Saying that President Bush started this war would be like saying President Roosevelt started World War II. Once our nation has been attacked, and repeatedly, then we must protect our nation. Because it is an ideological enemy, and not a nation, the battle is complicated and amorphous. I admire President Bush for recognizing the nature of the threat and standing firm in his committment in facing it.

How would we view President Roosevelt now, if he had decided not to defend the country, and especially if he had decided not to liberate most of Western Europe, and save many in concentration camps from certain death?

We invaded a country and we removed it's leader under the banner of protecting ourselves. When he wasn't involved in the attacks on us. When none of the men who carried the attacks out on 9/11 were from that country. We didn't do so to save people living there, at least that's not what the reasons were at the time. That came later, when no WMD were found.

Who among us likes war? I do not, but believe it is righteous and necessary, much as defending your little sister or brother from a bully is righteous and necessary. That's a simplistic explanation, but I think it is relevant.

I don't have a problem with the idea of defending ourselves. But I don't believe we are doing so the best way possible by invading Iraq and not focusing on other areas.

BJean, specifically to you, I am sorry you feel personally attacked or abused by an opposing point of view. Yet, in your post complaining about that, you continue to use terms like Georgie-porgie, and BuSh, which simply ARE disrespectful and ARE ad-hominem attacks

But they aren't attacks on you. This may be unfair, but after listening all the comments about Clinton for the last what, 13 years, I find BuSh pretty mild. Disclaimer, I'm not saying you personally made comments about Clinton.

[green 6]

Those of you who are attempting to draw parrallels between America's tardy engagement in the second world war and the current mess in the middle east should take time to brush up on the two situations. The United States entered both the first and second world wars after these conflicts had become well established. Their northern neighbours, Canada and Newfoundland (Newfoundland had not opted to become part of Canada until 1949), had been engaged in these conflicts from the the get go. Australia and New Zealand were also on board during these dreadful conflicts.

Their (Australia and New Zealand) troops became known under the portmanteau word of Anzac troops. These are countries who had participated in two world wars and who had seen many of their men slaughtered as a result. These were young countries and I sometimes wonder about the effect that these wars had on their national psyches. Though it is not to be expected that this history should mean anything much to you Americans it is, nevertheless, powerful history for the Commonwealth countries. (I should mention that I was on Gallipoli with a handful of Anzacs a little over a year ago. It was a big deal for my fellow travellers.)

All Americans should be both touched and interested to learn that a number of Americans, many of them from the wealthiest and most privileged houses, chose to become engaged in both the first and second world wars long before the United States formally opted to formally participate as a nation.

Though it is true that the Americans saved the arses of the Brits and the Western European countries from the Jew-hating, racist, world-thirsty Hun, and his gang of associated power-hungry sociopaths - a good thing for the free world! - let us also admit that America dragged its heels and entered into the war in a tardy fashion.

It is thanks to FDR, a Democrat, that the United States did enter into that war. (I could even stretch a point and say that that it is thanks to FDR that I exist and am doing well in my obnoxious way.)

Engagements in the first and second world war have nothing to do with this current mess in Iraq and those individuals who are trying to draw some kind of parrallel are either woefully misinformed or believe that the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for this argument. In the case of the first and second world wars there was a country, Germany, that had attempted to gobble up its neighbours and, in so doing, disturb global peace and harmony.

Iraq had been minding its own business at the time that it was invaded by the Bushikins. And certainly we God-lovin' Christians who live in America are unlikely to be denied access to church, microwave oven, or TV because Iraq has got the blues.

[GeezerSue 7]

Mousecrazy...you have a lot of unassociated random facts in here, strung together in a way that implies there is some logic...and there is not.

The battle is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other places, and was started by repeated terrorist attacks on American citizens and military by various terrorist associations, mostly Al Qaeda. It is no longer a war against another country/countries.

What you neglected ot mention is that NONE of those repeated attacks on Americans were perpetrated by or even funded by Iraq. YES, there were attacks...but we had no right to lash out at just ANY country. And funny which country we chose. We might as well have bombed Manila...more Americans had been killed by Philipine terrorists than by Iraq terrorists.

The fact that someone hurt us does not give us the right to just randomly pick a group of other people to hurt.

The ideology of Naziism, most effectively popularized and lead by Adolf Hitler, is similar in some respects to the ideology of Jihadist Islam, most effectively popularized and lead by Osama bin Laden.

"In some respects," the "ideology of Naziism" (and Hitler DEVELOPED Naziism, not just popularized it) is similar to SOME OF the ideology of the Boy Scouts of America. Get 'em young, train 'em up in the way they should grow, teach them what they need to survive, imbue them with patriotic pledges and songs...and so on. Naziism is a hybrid based on Prussian militarism...BSA provided good training for those who might later enter the US military. There ARE similarities.

If you're looking for a group analogous to Islamic Jihadists, you need only look to the more militant Christian groups. THERE'S your analogy.

Saying that President Bush started this war would be like saying President Roosevelt started World War II.

Uh...no. Our response in the Pacific was a response to THE ATTACK ON THE US MILITARY AT PEARL HARBOR and a FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR by the Japanese. For Roosevelt's actions to be equal to Dubya's, Roosevelt would have had to respond to the Pearl Harbor attack by invading Peru.

Once our nation has been attacked, and repeatedly, then we must protect our nation.

Great. Keep the National Guard at home. Use our money to protect our harbors and airports and borders.

Because it is an ideological enemy, and not a nation, the battle is complicated and amorphous. I admire President Bush for recognizing the nature of the threat and standing firm in his committment in facing it.

All he has done is invade a country that did nothing to us and convince a lot of people--well, down to 31% this week--that we went there BECAUSE of something that somebody did to us.

How would we view President Roosevelt now, if he had decided not to defend the country, and especially if he had decided not to liberate most of Western Europe, and save many in concentration camps from certain death?

The only similarity I can find between Roosevelt and Dubya is that they both cavalierly and under the pretext of protecting us, robbed many Americans of their rights. Roosevelt abused Japanese Americans. Bush has abused MOST OF US by chipping away at our freedoms...the one thing that makes our country strong.

If Roosevelt had acted in a timely fashion, the six million who died--instead of the few who survived--would have been saved and boats full of Jews would not have been sent back from FLORIDA to certain death.

Who among us likes war? I do not, but believe it is righteous and necessary, much as defending your little sister or brother from a bully is righteous and necessary. That's a simplistic explanation, but I think it is relevant.

The bully, Mousecrazy, is in the mirror in the oval office.

I am proud that my DD understands that there are Americans who are brave and courageous and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. That is in absolutely no way shameful. It is heroic and admirable and thank God for those men and women.

Well...Tuesday, we're going to a funeral...for a young man who died for NOTHING. He meant well, he did as told, he was willing to put his life on the line for all of us...but we will eventually declare this debacle a far bigger loss than Viet Nam and his blood will have been spilled for a hopeless cause.

BTW, the book Imperial Hubris explains Jihad to the uninitiated. The defense of the faith is, to Muslims, as much a part of their faith as the mass is to a Catholic. The assertion that "they hate us because we're free" is garbage. They live among us. They do NOT attack the XXX-theater in your town or burn down stores that sell Playboy or plant bombs along the path of the Gay Pride parade. They don't blow-up abortion clinics or go into Amish territory and execute little girls. In other words, they pretty much live-and-let-live.

Devout Muslims maintain a belief that they are supposed to live all of life...ALL OF LIFE...as outlined in their holy books. They cannot imagine that any part of life would fall outside of the word of God. What makes a devout Muslim go (in our opinion) over the deep end is that others--outsiders like us--do not want them to live their lives according to the will of Allah AND their plausible perception that what they most treasure--God, Allah, Muslim lands--are under attack by those who do not want them to live in the way that they are absolutely sure God wants them to live.

While there are inside power struggles within Muslim lands, what triggers a jihad (a defensive jihad--which any Muslim is duty-bound to participate in) is what WE do to THEM.

[BJean 16]

GeezerSue: You had the last say here and for damned good reason. Good job!