Presidential Spotlight: John Edwards

[SavageSun4x4]

"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem," Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. "The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

A key difference between DimOkrats and Republicans is their view on the war on terror. The terrorists have declared war on the US and the Republicans have responded in kind by declaring war on them. The DimOkrats however do not see it that way, to them its just a "bumper sticker".:eek:

What was Ft Dix and now JFK Airport of the past few weeks. Just another bumper sticker? NOTE: The NY Times newspaper put the terrorist plot to blow up JFK on page 39, just below a piece on kids having fun at Fuddruckers:rolleyes:

In January 2009 we will have a new President of the US. Its up to you who and what political party it is. So I guess when it comes down to it the question, are we at war or is it just a bumper sticker? You make the call.;)

[offroadaz]

murtha blamed the JFK plot on us being in iraq

[John_P]

"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem," Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. "The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

A key difference between DimOkrats and Republicans is their view on the war on terror. The terrorists have declared war on the US and the Republicans have responded in kind by declaring war on them. The DimOkrats however do not see it that way, to them its just a "bumper sticker".:eek:

What was Ft Dix and now JFK Airport of the past few weeks. Just another bumper sticker? NOTE: The NY Times newspaper put the terrorist plot to blow up JFK on page 39, just below a piece on kids having fun at Fuddruckers:rolleyes:

In January 2009 we will have a new President of the US. Its up to you who and what political party it is. So I guess when it comes down to it the question, are we at war or is it just a bumper sticker? You make the call.;)

Edwards is right. Terrorism is a crime not an act of war.

[offroadaz]

what is jihad then?

[SavageSun4x4]

Edwards is right. Terrorism is a crime not an act of war.
First you are dead wrong on this. That said, terrorism can be a crime. Acts of terrorism conducted by various gangs, hoodlums errant kids pulling an ill thought out prank etc. Tese acts when conducted against individuals or small groups are indeed a crime.

However a orchestrated effort to conduct terrorism at the country or world level for the purpose of overthrowing the government becomes an act of war. It is an act of war when organized terrorism is pointed at a government as it is the US. This is what we have now.

Secondly and I find this the most frightening aspect of all is that the current acts of terrorism against the US [Ft Dix and JFK Airport] will be considered a crime not an act of war. If this happens and already the ACLU has come on line claiming FT Dix and JFK among others are only crimes. Then no one is safe and we lose our ability to fight back. I dare say, based upon what little I know about Ft Dix and JFK there is sufficient evidence to convict the terrorist of a crime, yet ample evidence to convict of an act of war.

Do you REALLY want terrorism catorgized as crime? And for the terrorist to be set free?

Generally speaking in order to convict of a crime you must comit a crime. Intent is not sufficient.

Terrorism as an act of war only requires intent and for you to be on the bad guys side.

Johnny and I are talking one day and discussing how if we had more funds we could do more on our Jeeps. This discussion leads to how to rob a bank and get away with it. We even go so far to to pick out a bank and make several trips down there to "case" the place. We talk at length, develop complex plans, drawings and a written scenario. Can we be convicted of robbing a bank? Of any crime? Not likely and we don't even need a slick lawyer. Get the picture?

[amber.hodge]

John P - Just in case you happen to have forgotten how to access a dictionary....I find it apalling that you do not understand the definition of the word "war" or the application of this definition to the current state of affairs as you are a teacher's assistant at a college. I also find it highly offensive that you would say that my comrades - and dammit, I HAVE buried comrades in the last few years - died in anything other than a war. Do not sit there behind your computer in your safe home - safe because of the blood of brave men and women over 2.5 centuries - and P ISS on their graves, on what they did in bravery and on them in their courage and moral fortitude to go to these hell holes and serve in the name of your personal freedoms and protection. WE put our lives on the line just so that idiots like YOU can have the right to speak english, voice your bull#### opinions and make yourselves look like mentally retarded puppets for whatever psycopathic idiot of a candidate/politician your party puts forth to shame this country. Here - learn something:

war1 /wɔr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict.
8. Archaic. a battle.
–verb (used without object)
10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition
–adjective 13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

The word Jihad means "holy war". These peoples of extreme religeous beliefs are offended by the american culture, people, religious beliefs, etc, etc, etc.
They are so offended at us that they have decided that they will do anything possible to kill as many of us as possible at any given time. They believe they are at war with us. They will stop at nothing to kill us to try to shove us into a mass hysteria. Fortunately, the resolve of the american people is strong enough that we bonded together during these attacks instead of being thrown into pandemonium.
Unfortunately, you libbies will never understand this concept and love to be puppets for whoever the latest retard is that you put in office.

[OlneyJeeps]

Edwards is right. Terrorism is a crime not an act of war.

sorry, in my book crimes are isolated actions of individuals/groups against other individuals ( inclusive of companies or corporations ); war is an effort to overthrow, tumble or coerce a government or citizens of a government by means of violence (which coincidentally includes but is not limited to TERRORISM )
I can't wait to have this one spun to look naive, under or over inclusive

[Antman]

You guys have just made JohnP's day with a capital T.

[amber.hodge]

I know.......I engaged the enemy...and he's always looking to be engaged....drat!

[John_P]

First you are dead wrong on this. That said, terrorism can be a crime. Acts of terrorism conducted by various gangs, hoodlums errant kids pulling an ill thought out prank etc. Tese acts when conducted against individuals or small groups are indeed a crime.

However a orchestrated effort to conduct terrorism at the country or world level for the purpose of overthrowing the government becomes an act of war. It is an act of war when organized terrorism is pointed at a government as it is the US. This is what we have now.

Secondly and I find this the most frightening aspect of all is that the current acts of terrorism against the US [Ft Dix and JFK Airport] will be considered a crime not an act of war. If this happens and already the ACLU has come on line claiming FT Dix and JFK among others are only crimes. Then no one is safe and we lose our ability to fight back. I dare say, based upon what little I know about Ft Dix and JFK there is sufficient evidence to convict the terrorist of a crime, yet ample evidence to convict of an act of war.

Do you REALLY want terrorism catorgized as crime? And for the terrorist to be set free?

Generally speaking in order to convict of a crime you must comit a crime. Intent is not sufficient.

Terrorism as an act of war only requires intent and for you to be on the bad guys side.

Johnny and I are talking one day and discussing how if we had more funds we could do more on our Jeeps. This discussion leads to how to rob a bank and get away with it. We even go so far to to pick out a bank and make several trips down there to "case" the place. We talk at length, develop complex plans, drawings and a written scenario. Can we be convicted of robbing a bank? Of any crime? Not likely and we don't even need a slick lawyer. Get the picture?

Did Timothy McVey (Sp?) engage in an act of war?

[amber.hodge]

McVey and the Al Queda have some significant differences, and you know it John. Just as you and sane, rational humans have some significant differences...IMO...

Well, that's my .02.....I'll stay in the peanut gallery from here on out...

[John_P]

John P - Just in case you happen to have forgotten how to access a dictionary....I find it apalling that you do not understand the definition of the word "war" or the application of this definition to the current state of affairs as you are a teacher's assistant at a college. I also find it highly offensive that you would say that my comrades - and dammit, I HAVE buried comrades in the last few years - died in anything other than a war. Do not sit there behind your computer in your safe home - safe because of the blood of brave men and women over 2.5 centuries - and P ISS on their graves, on what they did in bravery and on them in their courage and moral fortitude to go to these hell holes and serve in the name of your personal freedoms and protection. WE put our lives on the line just so that idiots like YOU can have the right to speak english, voice your bull#### opinions and make yourselves look like mentally retarded puppets for whatever psycopathic idiot of a candidate/politician your party puts forth to shame this country. Here - learn something:

war1 /wɔr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict.
8. Archaic. a battle.
–verb (used without object)
10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition
–adjective 13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

The word Jihad means "holy war". These peoples of extreme religeous beliefs are offended by the american culture, people, religious beliefs, etc, etc, etc.
They are so offended at us that they have decided that they will do anything possible to kill as many of us as possible at any given time. They believe they are at war with us. They will stop at nothing to kill us to try to shove us into a mass hysteria. Fortunately, the resolve of the american people is strong enough that we bonded together during these attacks instead of being thrown into pandemonium.
Unfortunately, you libbies will never understand this concept and love to be puppets for whoever the latest retard is that you put in office.

Don't get your camo panties in a bunch...relax...I have said it a million times, but I will say it again for you....I appreciate our soldiers willingness to sacrafice their lives when called upon to do so...however that said, I hold those who did call liable for the misuse of that sacrifice. Does that make that sacrafice any less great? No. Because sacrifice in spirit of duty and nation stand on its own...no matter the conflict.

Ok...now you can put your passion aside and approach this rationally...

First of all...You need to answer the question I asked Don...

Second, you need to consider that the individuals who were caught in London were GOING to commit and act of terrorism and WERE BRITISH CITIZENS.

So I guess this must be a civil war???? Huh? Traitors? Or acts of crime?

Third, I think Iraq is less of a war and more like a police action. Because that is what we are doing...providing what police provide...security...hell we are training police...

The conflict with Saddam was a 'brief' war, because we were actively attacking a nation state in an act of war. But Iraq has quickly become nothing more than a police action.

Finally, it has been my opinion since day 1, that we should NOT have engaged in a conventional conflict in order to 'fight terrorism'. Rather, we should have beefed up special forces, international intelligence, and made some international friends quite frankly.

Now we are mired in a CIVIL war...why?

[John_P]

McVey and the Al Queda have some significant differences, and you know it John.

Enlighten me.

[John_P]

sorry, in my book crimes are isolated actions of individuals/groups against other individuals ( inclusive of companies or corporations ); war is an effort to overthrow, tumble or coerce a government or citizens of a government by means of violence (which coincidentally includes but is not limited to TERRORISM )
I can't wait to have this one spun to look naive, under or over inclusive

So in short...you are considering terrorism as both crime and war?

So Timothy McVey's intent sure seems like war, yet was carried out by two individuals...crime or war?

Government thought it was a crime.

Face it, this is only a 'war' because the Prez has 'war atuhority' right now...but it is not a war proper.


How 'bout this one...is the 'War on drugs' a war? How about the 'War on crime'? How is that for a brain teaser?

[amber.hodge]

John, your support of the soldiers - based upon your views and spoken feelings/opinions - is very superficial.

We are soldiers and we believe in what our country is doing...at least I do, as I REENLISTED AFTER the war started. I believe in what we are doing, although sometimes, I believe other tactics might work better - but I'm not a general or a president and they do what they do for a reason.

[desertrubi]

I agree with amber here. I believe that the tactics in use could be a little better. But believe it or not, we are at war. Drug lords have not come out and declared war on us, same with criminals. The radical fundamentalists have declared war on us. They do not possess army's capable of taking us on face to face, so they use the tactics that best suit them. They can not come into our country with conventional military forces and take us over. So they send in their people to crash planes and attempt to bomb our people.

The day is soon arriving when we will be dealing with suicide bombers. John, when that day comes, I want to know what your thoughts are. Because for anybody to try and say anything about that is full of it. Unless you have lived in Israel or been deployed to Iraq and dealt with it. Everyday the WAR is brought to our shores more and more.

Quick question for you John: If a branch of a religion(remember their governments are based on their religion) declares war on you, and attacks your country are you at war? When they send a suicide bomber into a crowded mall with the intent of disrupting and over throwing our government, is that war?

Timothy Mcvey did not represent a body of people. He was a citizen of this country and wanted to hurt the government. He was not acting for another government or entity outside our country when he did it. Now if he had thousands upon thousands of followers and they continued to fight in his absence for the same beliefs as his, then it would be a civil war.

The British and American citizens that fight for Islam are recruited by them. Or, they have ties to Islam and are taking up the fight for that group. A war does not need to be Country against Country. Especially when the entity that is fighting you does not have one single country, but many.

John, do you consider the Crusades to be a war?

[amber.hodge]

Thank you, Desertrubi - i agree. :) also note that timothy mcvey was not acting out of rage for his religious beliefs being insulted by a particular culture of people....He was just a wee bit low on the sanity factor and a wee bit high on the psychotic factor....with the knowledge of how to make a bomb.....bad combo for Oklahoma.

[offroadaz]

John, what is Jihad?

[Kiwi]

This website is a good eye opener: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

I think with this conflict with radical Islam, 'war' is losley defined. We tend to think of it as some sort of violent act, but, in fact, there are those that are waging 'war' against western civilation by simply pushing thier agenda and us complying.

The goal, it seems, is to place all countries under shira law, thereby converting the infedels to Islam, or kill those that don't accept this.

In some sense, by not recognizing this as a 'war' and, giving in due to being 'politicaly correct' they are, in fact, winning thier 'war'

Us withdrawing from Iraq and allowing it to be transformed into a Islamic state would certainly be a huge victory for them (and Iran)

Just my .02

[John_P]

John, your support of the soldiers - based upon your views and spoken feelings/opinions - is very superficial.

Wow...and all this time I thought those cookies my wife baked and the coffee we sent to Iraq was a small, but heart felt, TANGIBLE show of our support.

I guess words carry no meaning unless your a conservative, bible thumping, hawkish, republican. I suppose a LESS superficial show of support is putting a yellow ribbon on my jeep. :rolleyes:

Who would have thought? :rolleyes:

[John_P]

The day is soon arriving when we will be dealing with suicide bombers. John, when that day comes, I want to know what your thoughts are. Because for anybody to try and say anything about that is full of it. Unless you have lived in Israel or been deployed to Iraq and dealt with it. Everyday the WAR is brought to our shores more and more.

I disagree. To imagine events similar to what takes place in Israel or on the streets of Baghdad only testify to the what Edwards believes....The American public, at least a portion of them, buy into the constant propaganda that we are going to be invaded by suicide bombers, and Shi'ite militias intent on disrupting us...

They engage in these tactics so that we will LEAVE their country. They harm their own people to create a sentiment that WE are occupiers and that civilians deaths are a function of our occupation. They scare the populous into be quiet about militias and weapons stores, and it works...OVER THERE...

But those tactics would not do squat over here...? What purpose would they serve? I will tell you this...the intent would not be to 'over throw' our government.

Now Bush wants to have 4 permanent bases in Iraq? Yea...it might come here, but NOT for the reasons you think...


Quick question for you John: If a branch of a religion(remember their governments are based on their religion) declares war on you, and attacks your country are you at war? When they send a suicide bomber into a crowded mall with the intent of disrupting and over throwing our government, is that war?

Over throwing our government? If you think the intent of suicide bombers is to over throw our government...you are seriously missing the point of this type of insurgency.


Timothy Mcvey did not represent a body of people. He was a citizen of this country and wanted to hurt the government. He was not acting for another government or entity outside our country when he did it. Now if he had thousands upon thousands of followers and they continued to fight in his absence for the same beliefs as his, then it would be a civil war.

And who says he does not have followers? Who says that Timothy McVey's actions represent the feelings of a minority of radical Americans that believe the American government is wrong?

Which government is Al Quada working for again???


The British and American citizens that fight for Islam are recruited by them. Or, they have ties to Islam and are taking up the fight for that group. A war does not need to be Country against Country. Especially when the entity that is fighting you does not have one single country, but many.

John, do you consider the Crusades to be a war?

The crusades, although undertaken partly for religious reasons, were a series of conflicts that were between ruling 'Kingdoms', notably a united Europe by the papacy. Because 'governments' were largely theocratic it is difficult to concieve of them as modern nation-states. For the record the first crusade was very much an effort to halt the expansion of muslim empires into the European Byzantine Empire.

[John_P]

This website is a good eye opener: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

I think with this conflict with radical Islam, 'war' is losley defined. We tend to think of it as some sort of violent act, but, in fact, there are those that are waging 'war' against western civilation by simply pushing thier agenda and us complying.

The goal, it seems, is to place all countries under shira law, thereby converting the infedels to Islam, or kill those that don't accept this.

In some sense, by not recognizing this as a 'war' and, giving in due to being 'politicaly correct' they are, in fact, winning thier 'war'

Us withdrawing from Iraq and allowing it to be transformed into a Islamic state would certainly be a huge victory for them (and Iran)

Just my .02

The irony in this [bolded] statement is that when given the choice, via the almighty vote, they CHOSE to have RELIGIOUS parties represent them.

Also, Saddam was SECULAR, not religious, and I find it funny that his ousting has only brought into power that which we now do not want...a theocraticly influenced government. Not quite what Iran has...but close.

Also, 'winning' depends on how you define the goal. If there stated goal is to convert us to Islam...and that represents winning, then leaving Iraq hardly produces such an outcome.

[John_P]

John, what is Jihad?

Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society".

[06GrnRubi]

It's me. And while you might think I'm just adding to my post count, in reality, I am just letting everyone here know that I am ignoring John P's posts. Not in the sense that I cannot see them, but in just not going to give him the satisfaction of replyinh to his idiotic ramblings. Please join me. there's room for all to enjoy.

[John_P]

It's me. And while you might think I'm just adding to my post count, in reality, I am just letting everyone here know that I am ignoring John P's posts because I dare not disagree with mainstream conservative viewpoints. Not in the sense that I cannot see them, but in just not going to give him the satisfaction of replying to his arguments. I would rather just pass them off as idiotic ramblings, because thinking makes my head hurt. Please join me. there's room for all to enjoy.

Fixed it for you. :D

[offroadaz]

Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society".

seems like you favor wikipedia so Ill use them as well


"Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by early movements like the Kharijites and the contemporary Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1]


Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state
"



According to the quran and wikipedia jihad is a form of warfare

muslim extremist have publicly declared jihad

therefore terrorism by muslim extremist is an act of war


it is not a sense of a traditional war. We are not at war against a state or one entity, rather we are at war with an extremist ideology that has millions of followers

[06GrnRubi]

So to get back on subject, I think I agree with this portion of Edwards' statement: "It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired What Bush needs to take into account, is that terrorists do not fight wars as they have traditionally been fought. And because of that, we need to change the way we engage the enemy. This will undoubtedly be unpopular with a large percentage of the nation and worlds population, but who gives a shiat? It was us that they attacked, not the rest of the world.

It's time to shoot first and ask questions later. OH, the hell with it, forget the questions, shoot and move on.

[jpotts]

I hate to jump in here because talking politics is especially messy, but I wonder about what John Edwards meant. I think that it is obvious that we are fighting a war - or multiple wars. In Afghanistan we are fighting a war on terror. We may be fighting the war in Iraq for other purposes, such as money and resources.

When we entered Iraq, there wasn't near the terrorist threat in that country that exists today. I think that we got into Iraq for our own political interests and not to fight terror. I think that our current administration coldly used a national catastrophe to advance a political agenda at a morbidly opportune time. Since that country has been destabilized, terrorists have come in from other countries in the region.

It is possible that we have created the theater for the war on terror in Iraq because it was the most logical place to create a battlefield as it does serve some other political interests. Because the war on terror is unconventional, we may have needed to find a place to fight it. It's not like we can effectively wage this war by invading every country that harbors terrorists. We might have felt like we could bring the terrorists to us by creating a war in the region. Admittedly, it's much better to fight terrorists in the middle east then in New York City or Washington DC.

Anyway, sorry to jump in here. I know I'll probably get flamed because I took a position that doesn't necessarily agree with any previous argument, but I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut sometimes.

[John_P]

seems like you favor wikipedia so Ill use them as well


"Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by early movements like the Kharijites and the contemporary Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1]


Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state
"



According to the quran and wikipedia jihad is a form of warfare

muslim extremist have publicly declared jihad

therefore terrorism by muslim extremist is an act of war


it is not a sense of a traditional war. We are not at war against a state or one entity, rather we are at war with an extremist ideology that has millions of followers

"In the languages of non-islamic cultures, the term is usually used to refer to Muslim 'Holy War' or any violent strife invoking Allah."

I reject enthocentric interpretations such as your own. Why not let the language speak for itself?

However, even IF we are to accept Jihad as 'holy war' than is what is occuring really Jihad?

The Qu'ran directly mentions what conditions must be met in terms of what can constitute Jihad of the sword. Those being that there must be occupation by an aggressor, where oppression is taking place. Therefore, if you are going to call this a 'war' based on it being a 'Jihad' then you also have to admit that we are oppressing and occupying muslims.

I highly doubt you would admit that.

Also, the Qu'ran prohibits the killing of innocent civilians in military actions undertaken by a Jihad of the sword. Thus, the suicide bombings that kill innocent women and children would NOT be considered Jihad under Islamic law. Many Islamic scholars have said this numerous times.

So, I would have to agree that the insurgency is not a Jihad. If it is not a Jihad, it is not a 'holy war'...therefore your argument that this is a war based on the idea that it is a Jihad, it false.

[Kiwi]

So to get back on subject, I think I agree with this portion of Edwards' statement: What Bush needs to take into account, is that terrorists do not fight wars as they have traditionally been fought. And because of that, we need to change the way we engage the enemy. This will undoubtedly be unpopular with a large percentage of the nation and worlds population, but who gives a shiat? It was us that they attacked, not the rest of the world.

It's time to shoot first and ask questions later. OH, the hell with it, forget the questions, shoot and move on.


Nuke 'em all and let God sort it all :) I know, not funny.

I know Bush had good intentions, but sometimes, I can see this 'from the other side' We go marching in there, throw out Saddam, and tell them, OK, set up a democratic goverment. Did anybody ask them beforehand if they even wanted a democratic goverment? Sure, Saddam had to be dealt with, but this mess right now is the exact reason Bush #1 gave for not taking out out Saddam in war #1 - a massive power vacum would ensue (which, by the way, all the Democrats roundly critisized him for, calling him a wimp)

By the same token, maybe this is all a part of Bush's 'grand scheme' It's like poking a magnet in a bucket of bolts. Give all the jihadists a flash point, where we can engage them with the military. Keep them from having too much idle time figuring out ways to conduct another 9/11.

So, when we surrender, er, I mean, withdraw our troops, I highly doubt the radicals will lay down thier arms and continue on with thier normaly peaceful lives. They'll continue thier 'war' - only we'll be hiding under a rock trying to pretend they all really, really love us!

[offroadaz]

"In the languages of non-islamic cultures, the term is usually used to refer to Muslim 'Holy War' or any violent strife invoking Allah."

I reject enthocentric interpretations such as your own. Why not let the language speak for itself?

However, even IF we are to accept Jihad as 'holy war' than is what is occuring really Jihad?

The Qu'ran directly mentions what conditions must be met in terms of what can constitute Jihad of the sword. Those being that there must be occupation by an aggressor, where oppression is taking place. Therefore, if you are going to call this a 'war' based on it being a 'Jihad' then you also have to admit that we are oppressing and occupying muslims.

I highly doubt you would admit that.

Also, the Qu'ran prohibits the killing of innocent civilians in military actions undertaken by a Jihad of the sword. Thus, the suicide bombings that kill innocent women and children would NOT be considered Jihad under Islamic law. Many Islamic scholars have said this numerous times.

So, I would have to agree that the insurgency is not a Jihad. If it is not a Jihad, it is not a 'holy war'...therefore your argument that this is a war based on the idea that it is a Jihad, it false.

Sorry John, Ill disagree

Remember were not dealing with a rational person

The muslim extremist do feel opressed. Remember the guy in Gitmo who was complaining of psychological torture because the ball we gave him to play with wasnt inflated enough?

Hardly sounds like a rational person to me

When I was in thailand last year I had a chance to speak with a few muslims. I didnt feel threatened by them and actually had a good time talking with them over lunch

They said they do not agree with killing civillians but his logic was so skewed he said that anyone who works for the goverment, has a family member who works for the goverment or indirectly contributes to the goverment is a fair target. He thinks that if a few civillians got hurt in the crossfire then it is acceptable.

Also I was not only reffering to the fighting in Iraq. I was speaking in broad terms about the attacks worldwide

I have first hand accounts of violence by muslims against non believers. I have worked with the "lost boys" The group who was attacked by muslims in Sudan and had to march across the country to a refugee camp. They told us the reason their family was attacked was simply because they were Christian and that the muslims were spreading their religion by war and intimidation

Same thing they are trying to do here and worldwide now



last thing, there are several forms of Jihad. Some muslims think it is only a spiritual thing, others view it as a violent struggle against an enemy. Listen to what the terrorist groups are saying. They openly admit that they are at war and they believe they are fighting a jihad against america.

That is proof enough for me that we are at war and terrorism by muslims is an act of war as well as a crime

[SavageSun4x4]

Did Timothy McVey (Sp?) engage in an act of war?

Johnny, an individual cannot declare war against a government. Maybe the IRS;) Orchestrated terrorism by radical Muslims is a world wide problem. They look to overthrow governments that offer freedom and democracy and a better way of life. This war has gone on since the Crusades.

Part of the problem is that they now have the ability to wage war and soon will have the ability to do so using nuclear devices.

Question is really how do you want to view this? Act of war or criminal act? If you choose to view it as a criminal act then you are helpless to do anything about it until a crime is committed. However DO NOT feel alone if your choice is criminal act. France and all of Europe except the UK and the UN are on your side. In fact they firmly believe that more talking and understanding will solve the problem.

I and some others in this world, mostly here in the US see their terrorism as an acts of war...so does Bush, but NOT Edwards or any of the other crop of Dims that are running.

Having said that, lets change our paradigm to that of a mathematician, bussiness CEO or Las Vegas gambler.

Using this approach we will look at the maximum damage they can exert then examine the up side and down side risk.

Max damage: Nuclear level

Downside [what we gain if we treat them only as criminals and take action at that level]: [target, Wash DC, NY financial district] World wide economic disaster, depression and collapsed global economies. Time to rebound? 50+ years.

Upside [what we gain if we assume this is a war and take action at that level]: Continue in the world as we have come to know it.

You make the call!

[John_P]

Remember were not dealing with a rational person



Exactly. So why would you base your perception (i.e. it is a war) on that of irrational people?

[offroadaz]

Exactly. So why would you base your perception (i.e. it is a war) on that of irrational people?

You dont have to be a sane person to declare war and fight

[John_P]

Johnny, an individual cannot declare war against a government. Maybe the IRS;) Orchestrated terrorism by radical Muslims is a world wide problem. They look to overthrow governments that offer freedom and democracy and a better way of life. This war has gone on since the Crusades.

Part of the problem is that they now have the ability to wage war and soon will have the ability to do so using nuclear devices.

Question is really how do you want to view this? Act of war or criminal act? If you choose to view it as a criminal act then you are helpless to do anything about it until a crime is committed. However DO NOT feel alone if your choice is criminal act. France and all of Europe except the UK and the UN are on your side. In fact they firmly believe that more talking and understanding will solve the problem.

I and some others in this world, mostly here in the US see their terrorism as an acts of war...so does Bush, but NOT Edwards or any of the other crop of Dims that are running.

Having said that, lets change our paradigm to that of a mathematician, bussiness CEO or Las Vegas gambler.

Using this approach we will look at the maximum damage they can exert then examine the up side and down side risk.

Max damage: Nuclear level

Downside [what we gain if we treat them only as criminals and take action at that level]: [target, Wash DC, NY financial district] World wide economic disaster, depression and collapsed global economies. Time to rebound? 50+ years.

Upside [what we gain if we assume this is a war and take action at that level]: Continue in the world as we have come to know it.

You make the call!

You always make me chuckle, Don (see IRS comment).

Anyhow, I disagree. Just because we characterize terrorism as 'crime' does not mean we have to take a reactionary stance (i.e. wait till an act of terror is commited)

The conspiracy to commit an act of terror is covered under Title VIII of the U.S. Patriot Act.

[John_P]

You dont have to be a sane person to declare war and fight

True, and I could declare that you are actually a woman...but that does not mean I am right...or sane for that matter.

[SavageSun4x4]

You always make me chuckle, Don (see IRS comment).

Anyhow, I disagree. Just because we characterize terrorism as 'crime' does not mean we have to take a reactionary stance (i.e. wait till an act of terror is commited)

The conspiracy to commit an act of terror is covered under Title VIII of the U.S. Patriot Act.
True, HOWEVER, not you have to go to court, criminal court.

OJ OJ was declared "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt and set free!

Declaring a conspiracy as a crime is neither new and successfully or often results in a conviction.

Our court/criminal system is based upon "beyond a reasonable doubt" and for that reason many criminals escape punishment.

You have to have more than intent, you must have the means, physically, mentally and financially to do it.

That said, were this a different era I suspect that convictions would be much easier to come by. But in an age of the ACLU and slick lawyers looking to make a name for themselves I would say getting convictions will be much harder. Add to this Judges who are bleeding hearts. Let me point out to you several Judges here in Phoenix that have let foreign nationals here illegally free on minor bonds in felony cases and DUIs. Or the the DUI with the Arab girl here in Scottsdale. Again another felony case has the perpetrator just walk right out and head back home.

This is happening all over the US in DUIs, murders, robberies, pick you crime.

Do we want to let the terrorist loose after a failed attempt to blowup JFK Airport?

Lets say the plan is to destroy the NYC financial district using a nuke. But we catch them only days before their plan sez its gonna happen. Everything is in place except they don't have a NUKE.

Lawyer: Your honor, these charges are outrageous and unfounded. No nuclear weapon has ever been detonated on our soil by an enemy of the US. Further more my clients do not have ANY training among them that would allow them to build or create such a device. They are only cab drivers and clearly do not have the funds to buy one. They were not serious about this. Additionally they were pinpointed by racial profiling. The state is holding a grudge against these poor Muslims.

I ask that bond be set at $5k and they be set free to work on their defense.

Judge: So be it.


Just like you don't take a knife to a gun fight, you don't try to prosecute a war using the American judicial system...you cannot win.

[OlneyJeeps]

ok, there is no way I can read all the posts (drain brammage thing)..... 1 hair splitting correction for Don... OJ was declared "not guilty" (beyond a reasonable doubt) not "innocent"

[desertrubi]

To further Don's comment on slick lawyers and getting their people set free.

If you all remember the Iranian that stole a computer program from Palo Verde recently was let go with an ankle bracelet. Now they can't find him. Iran petitioned the U.S. to have him released. The U.S. complied and now he is gone. He didn't kill anybody or plan an attack, but he did steal nuclear based technology. (Even though the technology he took is basicly useless.) He is a citizen of our country and a foriegn government known to support terrorism asked for him to be released. Huh. Something just dosn't seem right.

[SavageSun4x4]

ok, there is no way I can read all the posts (drain brammage thing)..... 1 hair splitting correction for Don... OJ was declared "not guilty" (beyond a reasonable doubt) not "innocent"
OK, your right, that is what was going thru my head, but I didn't write it that way. Thanks and I made the correction.

[SavageSun4x4]

To further Don's comment on slick lawyers and getting their people set free.

If you all remember the Iranian that stole a computer program from Palo Verde recently was let go with an ankle bracelet. Now they can't find him. Iran petitioned the U.S. to have him released. The U.S. complied and now he is gone. He didn't kill anybody or plan an attack, but he did steal nuclear based technology. (Even though the technology he took is basicly useless.) He is a citizen of our country and a foriegn government known to support terrorism asked for him to be released. Huh. Something just dosn't seem right.

Problem is every sick and slick lawyer in town has a hard on chomping at the bit to defend the terrorists. Nearly every lawyer out there hopes to grab the brass ring ala John Edwards. Poor boy from poor family now living in a 20k sq ft house, getting $400 haircuts and running for President via stealing money from the American people. Now here is a guy who understands foreign policy:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[amber.hodge]

Wow...and all this time I thought those cookies my wife baked and the coffee we sent to Iraq was a small, but heart felt, TANGIBLE show of our support.

I guess words carry no meaning unless your a conservative, bible thumping, hawkish, republican. I suppose a LESS superficial show of support is putting a yellow ribbon on my jeep. :rolleyes:

Who would have thought? :rolleyes:

I could get a lifetime supply of clean, new socks, undies, wet wipes, new release dvds, brownies, fudge, etc from someone but if I hear them outwardly say that the conflict and WAR my friends have died in and I have been honor guard at said friend's funerals for was a bumper sticker......I'm sorry, but you say that they died for not, that their deaths were for nothing and you don't support what they believed in and were willing to die for. Sorry, cookies are not what the troops want from you John. An outward support of them and also for what they believe in and what they are willing to die for is all they want. Yellow ribbon? If I had a dollar for every time some old bag has cut me off or almost caused me to wreck or even not let me out into traffic while addorning their cars with those magnets while I'm in uniform, I'd be filthy rich. It is nice to see, but you kinda have to back that up with your attitude. :rolleyes:
So, am I to think there is something wrong with being a conservative, bible thumping republican.....because that is what I am.....hmmmmm are we not going back to that original 'assuming' thing...? But I digress....:rolleyes:

[amber.hodge]

Nuke 'em all and let God sort it all :) I know, not funny.

I know Bush had good intentions, but sometimes, I can see this 'from the other side' We go marching in there, throw out Saddam, and tell them, OK, set up a democratic goverment. Did anybody ask them beforehand if they even wanted a democratic goverment? Sure, Saddam had to be dealt with, but this mess right now is the exact reason Bush #1 gave for not taking out out Saddam in war #1 - a massive power vacum would ensue (which, by the way, all the Democrats roundly critisized him for, calling him a wimp)

By the same token, maybe this is all a part of Bush's 'grand scheme' It's like poking a magnet in a bucket of bolts. Give all the jihadists a flash point, where we can engage them with the military. Keep them from having too much idle time figuring out ways to conduct another 9/11.

So, when we surrender, er, I mean, withdraw our troops, I highly doubt the radicals will lay down thier arms and continue on with thier normaly peaceful lives. They'll continue thier 'war' - only we'll be hiding under a rock trying to pretend they all really, really love us!


We could just mobilize the engineers to flatten the area, make a giant asphalt parking lot and put "Eastern Europe Disney" there.....:)

[John_P]

.I'm sorry, but you say that they died for not, that their deaths were for nothing and you don't support what they believed in and were willing to die for.

Therein lies the problem. Somewhere...someone...told you that support for the troops equals support for a war.

I'm here to tell you that is BS.

Service and more specifically sacrifice, whether you are shot down in the midst of a battle on the streets of Baghdad or find your demise in the mess hall of Ft. Dix, is honorable. This honor knows no bounds.

The fact that you see fit to place qualifiers on the honor I bestow on those that serve makes me sick.

[1BLKJP]

The fact that you see fit to place qualifiers on the honor I bestow on those that serve makes me sick.

Ah, but John what you can't dispute and what you can't call into question is why she can place those qualifiers on your honor because she does serve and therefore can hold us to a higher level. I haven't served and I'm pretty sure that you haven't either. So if a soldier wants to spend a few minutes telling us how it really is we owe it to them to listen and come away from that conversation with a better understanding of their sacrifice. What they know about war is infinitismally (Sp?) greater than anything you can read in a book, learn from a teacher, or hear from a politician.

[Kiwi]

We could just mobilize the engineers to flatten the area, make a giant asphalt parking lot and put "Eastern Europe Disney" there.....:)


Jihad Land!

[SavageSun4x4]

The fact that you see fit to place qualifiers on the honor I bestow on those that serve makes me sick.
Soldiers often place qualifiers on honor. But why? Question, what % of soldiers have seen any duty in the middle east since 9/11?

Amazingly only about 50%.

The Government sez were were in Vietnam from '65 - '75 or at least that is the time period that one gets to wear a ribbon for. NOTE: My father was in Vietnam. '56, '59, '60 yet he does not get to wear the ribbon, nor was he credited with a combat tour. In the 10 year time frame we "were" there several million soldiers served over there. About 2.5 - 3.5 million [the number seems to change often?]

Lets just call it 3 million soldiers served. OK, how many in combat? Our most accurate number put the combat solders over the 10 years at...235k-275k and that is a VERY liberal number.

In a meeting I attended with a group of other Vietnam vets, of about 50 folks in attendance, I was the ONLY combat soldier. They were amazed, but I wasn't.

For every combat soldier, war fighter and the ultimate moniker, "warrior" there are about 15 - 25 soldiers that are part of the support structure that keep the warrior in "beans and bullets".

So inside the military when a soldier speaks of "honor", "warriors" and other terms they often have different meaning than what a civilian who does not understand the system sees. In fact many if not most folks simply view the military as a large Boy Scout/Girl Scout camp out with folks riding around all day on tanks 'n stuff. A few do, about 1 in every 15 - 25 depending upon world wide requirements.

What typically is seen in career soldiers is many folks in many fields like myself...yes I have slogged thru jungles and deserts, yes I wear the mark of a warrior with pride "Combat Infantryman's Badge" and yes I taught some very advanced software and computer engineering classes at the post grad level.

[06GrnRubi]

My favorite line from the movie Field of Dreams is where Kevin Costner's character is standing in the field and he hears a voice saying, "If you ignore him, he will leave".

[John_P]

Ah, but John what you can't dispute and what you can't call into question is why she can place those qualifiers on your honor because she does serve and therefore can hold us to a higher level. I haven't served and I'm pretty sure that you haven't either. So if a soldier wants to spend a few minutes telling us how it really is we owe it to them to listen and come away from that conversation with a better understanding of their sacrifice. What they know about war is infinitismally (Sp?) greater than anything you can read in a book, learn from a teacher, or hear from a politician.

My honor? I don't deserve a soldiers honor, not sure where you are getting that from...

Sure...As a soldier I am sure she has a different perspective...but I fail to see how berating my efforts to show some support for our troops is right...

What do you want me to do? Carve a stone figure of a soldier and place it on my lawn?

Lets be real for a moment.

Finally, my appreciation of a soldier's sacrifice came when I met my Uncle...a Vietnam vet who crawled through holes in the middle of a jungle with no more than .45 and flashlight.

When Don talks about PTSD...I sympathize...I can see it in my Uncle every time we talk about his experiences.

[desertrubi]

John, are you trying to base the decision if this is a war or not on the mental stability of our enemy? You said that they are irational. So we can not use the same "mindset" as them?

[amber.hodge]

Soldiers often place qualifiers on honor. But why? Question, what % of soldiers have seen any duty in the middle east since 9/11?

Amazingly only about 50%.

The Government sez were were in Vietnam from '65 - '75 or at least that is the time period that one gets to wear a ribbon for. NOTE: My father was in Vietnam. '56, '59, '60 yet he does not get to wear the ribbon, nor was he credited with a combat tour. In the 10 year time frame we "were" there several million soldiers served over there. About 2.5 - 3.5 million [the number seems to change often?]

Lets just call it 3 million soldiers served. OK, how many in combat? Our most accurate number put the combat solders over the 10 years at...235k-275k and that is a VERY liberal number.

In a meeting I attended with a group of other Vietnam vets, of about 50 folks in attendance, I was the ONLY combat soldier. They were amazed, but I wasn't.

For every combat soldier, war fighter and the ultimate moniker, "warrior" there are about 15 - 25 soldiers that are part of the support structure that keep the warrior in "beans and bullets".

So inside the military when a soldier speaks of "honor", "warriors" and other terms they often have different meaning than what a civilian who does not understand the system sees. In fact many if not most folks simply view the military as a large Boy Scout/Girl Scout camp out with folks riding around all day on tanks 'n stuff. A few do, about 1 in every 15 - 25 depending upon world wide requirements.

What typically is seen in career soldiers is many folks in many fields like myself...yes I have slogged thru jungles and deserts, yes I wear the mark of a warrior with pride "Combat Infantryman's Badge" and yes I taught some very advanced software and computer engineering classes at the post grad level.

Very, Very true....Bem and I are both set to deploy to the war next year, but my unit is a Regional Support Group (beans and bullets - logistical and planning - the BN level) and there is talk that we'll possibly just be deployed to fort bliss, TX...hmmmmmm...or just Kuwait....Ben, as he is in a trans unit and he is the 50 cal gunner for his unit - will be a big moving target atop a big moving target in and all over Iraq. While I can speak up for my friends that aren't alive to do it themselves, I cannot say I've been there. I can, however say that I have never been told what support for myself as a soldier feels like - I can tell you that hearing some tit mouth off about his little libbie ideas about the war doesn't feel supportive. That person that just comes up and shakes your hand and says "thank you"....i have had that happen 3 times in my 6 year career and i wear the Uniform DAILY. It almost brings a tear to my eyes - and you don't really know what to say, but it is the best support I've gotten...and the easiest to give.

We lost one out of the 158 infantry that is in Afghanistan last week and he left behind a wife and kids. He's from florence, and the funeral is set for next week.....another form of support would be to show up if it is a public funeral....but not with protest signs....I swear to god, I see one there, I'm going to impale someone's face with my boot.

[amber.hodge]

And just to summarize this board, JOHN EDWARDS IS AN ABSOLUTE MORON, AND ANYONE WHO WOULD VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS IS AN ABSOLUTE MORON WITH A BALLOT CARD. Soldiers don't like hearing you trash talk the war that you are acting as a puppet for your party and spewing the crap out that you hear them say about it...they really don't feel a earnest support when you do that either...

We should make Jihad Disney and possibly create a new sunni-muslim cartoon character to make the attendance go up at such establishment...

Also, If you want to quote a bumper sticker (as this war is not one), John, I'd say you should try my favorite one:

OIF/OEF - If you haven't been there, SHUT THE HELL UP!

[amber.hodge]

[/SIZE]You dont have to be a sane person to declare war and fight

EXACTLY.....hmmmmmmmm if you have to qualify as sane to declare war, then Hitler was just having a diplomacy issue............

[John_P]

John, are you trying to base the decision if this is a war or not on the mental stability of our enemy? You said that they are irational. So we can not use the same "mindset" as them?

I didn't say that, someone else did...

[John_P]

I can tell you that hearing some tit mouth off about his little libbie ideas about the war doesn't feel supportive.

Just goes to show that you cannot reasonably separate your politics from your duty. A shame really...because this discussion is about politics...not soldiers...not support for the soldiers...

[desertrubi]

Exactly. So why would you base your perception (i.e. it is a war) on that of irrational people?

You said it John. Why would you not base it off them? Are you saying that Hitler was sane? He was about as unstable as you can get, so do you consider WWII not to be a war? Was that a bumper sticker?

Get real John. This is a war. Maybe not a traditional war like we are used to where two armies meet on the battlefield and fight it out, but it is a war. The methods have changed but the reality of it has not. A very large religious group, with backing from several countries, has declared war on us. We can not expect to be able to stick our heads in a hole and hope the bad men will go away.

The time has come for us to stand up and be heard. What side of the fence are you on John? The side that is willing to give in and start praising allah and surrender to the other side? I stand on the other side that will never give in and continue to stand for our freedoms and liberties. Thats where the soldiers stand to by the way. Just in case you didn't know. They put their lives on the line so you have the oppurtunity to come on here and debate such topics.

Amber, Ben, and the rest of you that serve or have served, thank you. With out you we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today.

[amber.hodge]

Just goes to show that you cannot reasonably separate your politics from your duty. A shame really...because this discussion is about politics...not soldiers...not support for the soldiers...

Actually, this discussion is about John Edwards and his candidacy for president. It is about why people think he is a moron or why others don't and a debate about that. As a soldier, support for the soldiers is key in my voting for a presidential candidate who will be able to control where I am sent to, how long, and also decide on pay increases for me. I think that politics has EVERYTHING to do with support for the soldiers in my case.

If you are a farmer, you vote democratic because they take care of you a little better with funding. If you are a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/puddle pirate (coastie), then you vote republican because they will continue to keep the military at current size, and will take care of the troops a little more. Plus, when you look at republicans you are TONS more likely to be voting for a veteran that actually did something besides file for purple hearts due to shaving cuts on a boat (kerry). When looking at a presidential candidate's veteran status, that gives me a bigger warm fuzzy about voting for them because they have been where I am at in life and they would have my very best interests and that of my comrades in mind before sending us anywhere.

Take John McCain for one - he spent over 5 years in a POW camp and was shock tortured so much that he cannot ever raise his arms high enough to comb his own hair....his waive is really the highest he goes...he was tortured and beaten there in vietnam......do I think he keeps this in mind when thinking of "what's the worst that can happen?" before deciding to send troops into combat? Sure I do. That is why I will be voting for him. Now, being a teacher's aide....at college level...I assume you'd want to vote democratically because maybe they meet your needs more....I'm so very sorry that a good democratic candidate hasn't really come into play - well, perhaps you have Obama, but I doubt he wins the south......Obama sounds too much like Osama.

[amber.hodge]

Amber, Ben, and the rest of you that serve or have served, thank you. With out you we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today.

Thank you! Only 14 more years and I can retire...but if I want I can stay in till 60 which would be 39 years of service.....:D I'm debating....but thanks for your support. it means a lot. :D

[John_P]

Actually, this discussion is about John Edwards and his candidacy for president. It is about why people think he is a moron or why others don't and a debate about that. As a soldier, support for the soldiers is key in my voting for a presidential candidate who will be able to control where I am sent to, how long, and also decide on pay increases for me. I think that politics has EVERYTHING to do with support for the soldiers in my case.

Every candidate has openly stated that they support the troops. Great criteria for president. :rolleyes:


If you are a farmer, you vote democratic because they take care of you a little better with funding. If you are a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/puddle pirate (coastie), then you vote republican because they will continue to keep the military at current size, and will take care of the troops a little more. Plus, when you look at republicans you are TONS more likely to be voting for a veteran that actually did something besides file for purple hearts due to shaving cuts on a boat (kerry).

I forgot...Bush's military record has never been an issue. I am sure you an he shared a similar military experience. :rolleyes:


Now, being a teacher's aide....at college level...I assume you'd want to vote democratically because maybe they meet your needs more....I'm so very sorry that a good democratic candidate hasn't really come into play - well, perhaps you have Obama, but I doubt he wins the south......Obama sounds too much like Osama.

First of all...I am not a 'teachers aide'...Just a little clarification for you, I work as an adjunct faculty member.

Although I understand the whole 'vote your paycheck' mentality...I personally don't agree with it...maybe you do, and politicians can purchase your vote for a raise or whatever, but they can't buy mine.

Does that mean I don't want to see improvements in education? Of course I do...do I think some of those changes can come through increased salary for teachers...sure. But to base my vote for the most powerful office in the world on my paycheck...no thanks.

I would like to think that I vote for candidates ideas...their leadership potential. Again...I would like to 'think I do'...but they are all politicians so I do so with a bit of skepticism.

[John_P]

You said it John. Why would you not base it off them? Are you saying that Hitler was sane? He was about as unstable as you can get, so do you consider WWII not to be a war? Was that a bumper sticker?

You just broke the first rule of Internet debates...you can't mention Hitler. I'll pass on this question.

I think you can make a strong argument (however unpopular) that anyone who can systematically manipulate a nation of people, institute mass murder, conquer the majority of Europe and start a world war...is as close to genius as they are to insanity.


Get real John. This is a war. Maybe not a traditional war like we are used to where two armies meet on the battlefield and fight it out, but it is a war. The methods have changed but the reality of it has not. A very large religious group, with backing from several countries, has declared war on us. We can not expect to be able to stick our heads in a hole and hope the bad men will go away.

The implication here is that I would advocate not doing something about a radical religious group.

I have stated elsewhere what I would have done...and overthrowing the government of a country that was not an immediate threat is not one of them...


The time has come for us to stand up and be heard. What side of the fence are you on John? The side that is willing to give in and start praising allah and surrender to the other side? I stand on the other side that will never give in and continue to stand for our freedoms and liberties. Thats where the soldiers stand to by the way. Just in case you didn't know. They put their lives on the line so you have the oppurtunity to come on here and debate such topics.

That is the problem with people such as yourself...You assume because I don't support the current effort, that I would do nothing in return or actually do what radicals want me to do...

Stop the stupidity.

No one, on either side of the aisle has ever suggested that...nor do I, right now.

It has been my contention from 9/11 that are tax money would have been better spent building up our intelligence capabilities, improving diplomatic relations with middle east countries, and conducting very aggressive special forces type of covert action.

Not invading a sovereign land...

[amber.hodge]

whatever. I know they all say they support the military, john. Duh - but there are those EDWARDS/CLINTON/CLINTON.....etc, that say it but you can tell it is a lie.

Similar experience with bush? No, he was an officer and a pilot in the air ntl guard....I am enlisted and part of the army national guard engineering corps currently.....but at least he did some time and has some sort of Idea.

Teachers aide, adjunct faculty member (sound like fancy-talk for professor without a real job but kept on the books as some sort of university 'drug deal'.....anyway, I really don't care what you do or who you do it for, or what your hobbies are. I think you stir the pot just for the sake of stirring it and to get attention you somehow lack in your life. Either way, I don't think there has been much thought other than "this ought to start a rage in here" given to your outspoken public opinions....very little subsantial back-up either.

[desertrubi]

Edwards IMHO will do nothing but hurt this country if he is put into power. Plain and simple. I do not support him. IMHO once again, anybody that does support him agrees with what he stands for. Saddam was a threat. He had the weapons, and was crooked enough to sell them to islamic groups.

And yes, I do agree with you on one thing John.:D What Germany managed to pull off on Europe did take some brains. But he was also very much insane.

[desertrubi]

Thank you! Only 14 more years and I can retire...but if I want I can stay in till 60 which would be 39 years of service.....:D I'm debating....but thanks for your support. it means a lot. :D

I always support my brothers and sisters in arms.:D