[marden]

al-Qaeda's Political Warfare: Isolating America

Steve

"There can be no doubt that al-Qaeda intends to reach the voters in Western democracies in order to bring about elected governments that will ease the pressure put on the terrorist organization."

With the American midterm elections just one week away, the Jamestown Foundation’s Michael Scheuer offers a brief, effective overview of this strategy and its successes to date in Al-Qaeda Doctrine for International Political Warfare.

Bin Laden has tied this quasi-foreign policy closely to Islamist military activities and has laid it out as a doctrine to be followed by al-Qaeda and its associates. This foreign policy—or political warfare strategy—is to be delivered over the heads of U.S. and Western leaders to voters in non-Muslim countries and is meant to do two things: change the policies of countries allied with the United States by eroding popular support for assisting the United States in fighting the war on terrorism, and, second, slowly strip allies away from the United States and leave it increasingly isolated.

Scheuer goes on to cite bin Laden messages that were timed and delivered for precisely this purpose. Just how successful has this strategy been? Consider the concise list of major political shifts.

- The conservative, pro-U.S. government of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was defeated in an election soon after the March 2003 Madrid attack. The victorious socialist regime of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is less pro-American and has withdrawn Spanish troops from Iraq.

- In the summer of 2006, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s conservative, pro-U.S. government was defeated by a narrow margin, much of which appears to have consisted of those voters opposed to Rome’s support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The new Italian government is planning to reduce the number of Italian troops in Iraq.

- After facing a near revolt this summer in his Labor Party, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was compelled to appease the dissenters by announcing that he would step down from the premiership before he had intended to do so. The Labor Party’s anger—backed by many public opinion polls—stemmed from Blair’s hardy support for Washington’s war on terrorism.

- In October 2006, a group of Thai military officers staged a coup that removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from office. Allegations of corruption have since been made against Thaksin, but the generals appear to have acted in large part to stop Thaksin’s harsh military and law-enforcement operations against Islamist separatists in the country’s three Muslim-dominated southern provinces. The coup leaders named a Muslim Thai general as the new prime minister, and he immediately announced his willingness to slow military operations and consider increased autonomy for the southern provinces—actions that Thaksin had refused to do.

- In mid-October 2006, sources “close to the [French] military” leaked information showing that President Jacques Chirac’s government—in the face of rising violence in Afghanistan and public condemnation of the Iraq war—was formulating plans to withdraw its Special Forces from Afghanistan in 2007.

- In the fall of 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai repeatedly tried to distance themselves from “excessive” military operations conducted by the United States in their countries.

While not all of these are direct al-Qaeda cause and effect scenarios, such as the Madrid attacks that brought about the major shift in the Spanish government, at minimum they all parallel al-Qaeda’s desired effect – the incremental isolation of its American pursuers - and display an erosion of will.

ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: al-Qaeda's Political Warfare: Isolating America

Vote your conscience after knowing the above info.

[goMac]

America was isolating itself before Al Qaeda. The way we've dealt with Al Qaeda has just accelerated our isolation.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by goMac 

America was isolating itself before Al Qaeda. The way we've dealt with Al Qaeda has just accelerated our isolation.

So you believe that Al Qaeda was weaker during the "hands off" Clinton era?

[itai195]

So which party will isolate America more?

[marden]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

So you believe that Al Qaeda was weaker during the "hands off" Clinton era?

I liken it to our world being plagued with a Cancer that is ignored until it spreads throughout the body and then to the bones. By that time treatment must be serious.

Symptoms of Bone Cancer

Patients may present with persistent pain, swelling, or tenderness of a bone. They may have unexplained fracture of one or more bones, sometimes without noticeable trauma.

Diagnosis of Bone Cancer

The presenting symptom is usually pain. Pathologic fracture may be present and is more common in the lower than the upper extremity.

The presenting radiologic finding on X-ray is often destruction of bone. In a patient with a known primary malignant tumor presenting with a painful, destructive lesion of bone, a diagnosis of metastatic cancer can be made with some assurance. However, there are individuals in whom the primary cancer is not yet recognized at the time when the early metastatic lesion in bone becomes painful.

A CAT scan, MRI, radionuclide bone scan or a skeletal survey may be done to pinpoint which bones have been affected.

Treatment of Bone Cancer

The treatment of cancer of the bone, especially metastatic cancer, has two goals: management of the neoplasm and management of the symptoms produced by the local lesion. Prognosis is affected by a patient's age, the size of the primary tumor, grade and stage, degree of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion, the duration of symptoms and the location of the tumor on the arm, leg or trunk.

There are two ways bone metastasis is treated. Systemic therapy, aimed at cancer cells that have spread throughout the body, includes chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and immunotherapy. Local therapy, aimed at killing cancer cells in one specific part of the body, includes radiation therapy and surgery.

Surgery often has to be extensive, with a wide margin of tissue around the tumor being removed. Sarcomas involving muscles require removal of the entire affected muscle group.

Radiation therapy is used to prevent local recurrences of radiosensitive tumors and may be given either before or after surgery.

Chemotherapy - a number of drugs have proven to be effective in treating bone and soft tissue sarcomas. The dosages required to provide a good chance for cure often produce significant side effects. Effective single agents may include doxorubicin (Adriamycin), cyclophosphamide, high-dose methotrexate (with leucovorin rescue), ifosfamide, dacarbazine, vincristine, dactinomycin (Actinomycin D), etoposide and investigational agents. Combinations of these drugs are often used.

Hormone therapy is either the removal of the organs which produce hormones which can promote the growth of certain types of cancer (such as testosterone in males and estrogen in females), or drug therapy to keep the hormones from promoting cancer growth.

Biphosphonates are drugs that can be used to reduce bone pain and slow down bone damage in people who have cancer that has spread to their bones.

http://www.healthscout.com/ency/1/76...msofBoneCancer

There was a persistent soreness in the way of several attacks on America and our interests throughout the 1990's but it was ignored. A tremendous pain was exhibited on 9/11 and we saw that there was a major problem.

Once we saw the extent of the problem extensive systemic therapy became imperative.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Vote your conscience after knowing the above info.

My conscience tells me to vote for in utero baby killing and homo marriage.

I'm sure the jihadists appreciate my contribution to their ideal society.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by subego 

My conscience tells me to vote for in utero baby killing and homo marriage.

I'm sure the jihadists appreciate my contribution to their ideal society.

[marden]

Originally Posted by marden 

I liken it to our world being plagued with a Cancer that is ignored until it spreads throughout the body and then to the bones. By that time treatment must be serious.



There was a persistent soreness in the way of several attacks on America and our interests throughout the 1990's but it was ignored. A tremendous pain was exhibited on 9/11 and we saw that there was a major problem.

Once we saw the extent of the problem extensive systemic therapy became imperative.

Originally Posted by subego 

My conscience tells me to vote for in utero baby killing and homo marriage.

I'm sure the jihadists appreciate my contribution to their ideal society.

What do you think? Or, should I ask IF you think?

IT'S OK TO KILL GAYS - BRITISH IMAM

24 October 2006
The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported. http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/...9&zoneid=4

UK Muslims: 2% of Population, 25% of Anti-Gay Crimes

Britain’s Gay Police Association has been reprimanded for an advertisement implying that Christians are responsible for a huge increase in anti-homosexual violence: Gay police group’s ‘anti-Christian’ ad rapped. (Hat tip: authorizeduser.)


LONDON (Reuters) - The Gay Police Association (GPA) has been reprimanded for an ad which implied Christians were responsible for a huge rise in violent attacks on homosexuals.

The advert, placed in The Independent newspaper under the banner “in the name of the father” showed a Bible and a pool of blood.

It was a one-off, used to back up the GPA’s claim that the association had recorded a 74 percent increase in homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator.

The truth behind this rise in attacks is buried in the fourth paragraph of this al-Reuters report:

The association said the accompanying text made clear Christians were not the only group accused, in fact a quarter of the alleged incidents were provoked by Muslims, it said.

Notice: Muslims make up 2% of Britain’s population, but are responsible for 25% of the anti-gay hate crimes. And a British gay advocacy group is trying to conceal this, by focusing attention on Christians. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...rimes&only

October 25, 2006
Religion of Peace & Tolerance - Holy Land Branch

Sorry, folks, but that storied Islamic tolerance does not extend to gays. Palestinian gays flee to Israel

A number of gay Palestinian men are risking their lives to cross the border into Israel, claiming they feel safer among Israelis than their own people.

According to some estimates, there are now 300 gay Palestinian men secretly living and working in Israel.

Their willingness to live there - despite the risk of being detained and deported as a security threat - is due to Palestinian attitudes towards gay men, they claim.

One 22-year-old gay man who fled from Gaza into Israel four years ago told BBC World Service's Outlook programme he was almost killed when his family found out about his sexuality. ...

Shaul Gonen, of Israel's main gay rights lobbying group, Agudah, told Outlook that under international law Israel is obliged to offer asylum to those that seek it. But, he says, it can refuse if the applicants are from an area the state is in conflict with.

In practice, Palestinian gays end up being placed under virtual house arrest because of the fear that they may be potential suicide bombers.

"They are unable to find proper help," said Mr Gonen. "Everybody blames them for being something dangerous.

"The Palestinians say if you are gay, you must be a collaborator, while the Israelis treat you as a security threat."

I'm glad that these guys can find some safety in Israel. The barbarity of doing physical harm to someone over consenting adult sex is recognized as such in civilized societies. And it's more than interesting how the angry Israel-hating left chooses to ignore this in their one-sided condemnation of the Jewish state. http://clarityandresolve.com/archive..._of_pea_76.php

[Pendergast]

Woaw.

I think there is something glorous and magnificent in your delirium of persecution.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Woaw.

I think there is something glorous and magnificent in your delirium of persecution.

That's a nice turn of phrase!

It's incorrect but it sounds marvelous!

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

What do you think? Or, should I ask IF you think?

[sparse clapping]

"marden opens the round with a bare bones ad hominem."

"Wow, that wasn't what the crowd was expecting Jim, marden is known for the creative spice he adds to his routine, so I think the judges went into this with some higher expectations. As it is, he just came of as insulting."

"That's exactly what I was thinking Bruce... Wait, the judges are entering their scores, lets see how marden ranked..."

[the crowd breathes in]

"2.0..."

[the crowd lets out its collective sigh of sympathy]

"...2.6, 2.1..."

"...and a 3.4 from the Soviet Union!"

[clapping]

"A pretty weak first showing, I'm sure he'll do better in the next round."

"He's slated to... let's see... he's slated to do 'cut and paste about how Muslims hate gays'."

"Oooh, that's a risky move Bruce, aren't people just going to tell him that that's exactly why he should vote for the party who doesn't want gays treated as second class citizens?"

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"I mean, someone is bound to point out that the policies of the current Administration as far as gays are concerned are just the kind of thing Jihadists would approve of."

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"Bruce?"

"Yes Jim?"

"Hold me."

Scene

[Kevin]

I want to do away with the two party system. It's not longer about what is good for the country. But how can we make "the other side" look bad. And what is good for "our side"

Hard to do that when there are "no sides"

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by subego 

My conscience tells me to vote for in utero baby killing and homo marriage.

I'm sure the jihadists appreciate my contribution to their ideal society.

Good thing I'm not drinking milk or it would shoot out my nose. Downright funny post.

I'm stuck - I'm in favor of aggressive action to deal with terrorism. Fighting the war "over there" rather than here.

But I'm also for the "in utero baby killing and homo marriage" stuff, too.

One party doesn't want me for one thing, the other doesn't want me for the others.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I want to do away with the two party system. It's not longer about what is good for the country. But how can we make "the other side" look bad. And what is good for "our side"

Hard to do that when there are "no sides"

I agree with that post 100%. Political parties have done nothing but cause bickering amongst elected officials.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

So you believe that Al Qaeda was weaker during the "hands off" Clinton era?

I'd like to know how this question has anything to do with what I said. (I'd answer your question, but we've had a million threads on it and it's not related to what I said...)

[hyteckit]

Thanks, voting democrat.

Get rid of the Republicans in power who has no plan, no strategy, no solution on fighting terrorism.

[nath]

Originally Posted by subego 

[sparse clapping]

"marden opens the round with a bare bones ad hominem."

"Wow, that wasn't what the crowd was expecting Jim, marden is known for the creative spice he adds to his routine, so I think the judges went into this with some higher expectations. As it is, he just came of as insulting."

"That's exactly what I was thinking Bruce... Wait, the judges are entering their scores, lets see how marden ranked..."

[the crowd breathes in]

"2.0..."

[the crowd lets out its collective sigh of sympathy]

"...2.6, 2.1..."

"...and a 3.4 from the Soviet Union!"

[clapping]

"A pretty weak first showing, I'm sure he'll do better in the next round."

"He's slated to... let's see... he's slated to do 'cut and paste about how Muslims hate gays'."

"Oooh, that's a risky move Bruce, aren't people just going to tell him that that's exactly why he should vote for the party who doesn't want gays treated as second class citizens?"

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"I mean, someone is bound to point out that the policies of the current Administration as far as gays are concerned are just the kind of thing Jihadists would approve of."

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"Bruce?"

"Yes Jim?"

"Hold me."

Scene

10/10

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

[sparse clapping]

"marden opens the round with a bare bones ad hominem."

"Wow, that wasn't what the crowd was expecting Jim, marden is known for the creative spice he adds to his routine, so I think the judges went into this with some higher expectations. As it is, he just came of as insulting."

"That's exactly what I was thinking Bruce... Wait, the judges are entering their scores, lets see how marden ranked..."

[the crowd breathes in]

"2.0..."

[the crowd lets out its collective sigh of sympathy]

"...2.6, 2.1..."

"...and a 3.4 from the Soviet Union!"

[clapping]

"A pretty weak first showing, I'm sure he'll do better in the next round."

"He's slated to... let's see... he's slated to do 'cut and paste about how Muslims hate gays'."

"Oooh, that's a risky move Bruce, aren't people just going to tell him that that's exactly why he should vote for the party who doesn't want gays treated as second class citizens?"

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"I mean, someone is bound to point out that the policies of the current Administration as far as gays are concerned are just the kind of thing Jihadists would approve of."

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"Bruce?"

"Yes Jim?"

"Hold me."

Scene

Very funny!

However, your choice of supporting the enemy only increases the chance you will have no one to help you or to blame if the US were ever unable to prevent an Islamic conquest.

And as far fetched as some of you might think it is there are several scenarios which could make it much less a fantasy. Not all of them require an armed assault. They know we have the military edge. They will use guile and cunning. They have your numbers already and you think you will suddenly switch to being super patriots when the time comes?

What if they never give you anything that will trip your internal alarms?

You say that wouldn't happen?



It's been ringing like a mother ****er for more than 10 years and many of you are still not awake. And if you slept through all that's happened so far, then we will be bowing to Mecca for sure if we had to rely on your Jihad-dar for protection.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I want to do away with the two party system. It's not longer about what is good for the country. But how can we make "the other side" look bad. And what is good for "our side"

I'd support that, but I think you'd need a run-off system working along side it.

[invisibleX]

Its really a beautiful political statement: vote for my opponent and the terrorists win. Why vote for me based on my platform? No need! Not only am I the morally right choice I am the only choice. Who cares what I may or may not have done during my time in office because if you don't vote for me you're voting for terrorism!

The ultimate in partisan politics, kind of funny since not too long ago marden was calling for democrats and republicans to put aside petty difference and realize a common enemy. ts hilarious that marden thinks muslims are going to try and conquer and enslave us. Hell, even the worst of them have no interest in us at all: they just want us dead. I wonder if marden has thought of the scenario playing out in other countries: xenophobia causing internal violence.

Anyway, happy jihad marden.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Thanks, voting democrat.

Get rid of the Republicans in power who has no plan, no strategy, no solution on fighting terrorism.

Replacing them with Democrats in power who have no plan, no strategy, no solution on fighting terrorism.

Difference being: Democrats use the word "plan" a lot, hoping people will mistake saying you have one with actually having one.

Equals out to: "Stay the course" vs. "We need a plan"

Neither is a solution.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by itai195 

So which party will isolate America more?

Obviously, the one without all the jihadist sympathizers

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I want to do away with the two party system. It's not longer about what is good for the country. But how can we make "the other side" look bad. And what is good for "our side"

Hard to do that when there are "no sides"

Very true. But, what do you replace it with? Multi-party systems like Israel and Canada? The problem with those systems is they are often hamstrung by minority governments.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

[sparse clapping]

"marden opens the round with a bare bones ad hominem."

"Wow, that wasn't what the crowd was expecting Jim, marden is known for the creative spice he adds to his routine, so I think the judges went into this with some higher expectations. As it is, he just came of as insulting."

"That's exactly what I was thinking Bruce... Wait, the judges are entering their scores, lets see how marden ranked..."

[the crowd breathes in]

"2.0..."

[the crowd lets out its collective sigh of sympathy]

"...2.6, 2.1..."

"...and a 3.4 from the Soviet Union!"

[clapping]

"A pretty weak first showing, I'm sure he'll do better in the next round."

"He's slated to... let's see... he's slated to do 'cut and paste about how Muslims hate gays'."

"Oooh, that's a risky move Bruce, aren't people just going to tell him that that's exactly why he should vote for the party who doesn't want gays treated as second class citizens?"

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"I mean, someone is bound to point out that the policies of the current Administration as far as gays are concerned are just the kind of thing Jihadists would approve of."

"That's what I would think, Jim."

"Bruce?"

"Yes Jim?"

"Hold me."

Scene

Post of the week

... though, you forgot to note the score of 9.8 awarded from the Jihadist nations.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Very true. But, what do you replace it with? Multi-party systems like Israel and Canada? The problem with those systems is they are often hamstrung by minority governments.

Me, I'd replace it with a lottery. Every 2 years, some poor schlub in his congressional district gets a note: "You are now the congressman for your district. Report to Washington DC on [date]. Declining this duty is not an option." Every 6 years, 2 people in each state get the same sorta thing regarding Senate duties. Finally, every 4 years, 4 people from across the country gets a note: "You are now one of 4 candidates for president. You have 10 million dollars with which to run (or not run) a campaign. Regardless of amount of campaigning, your name will be on the ballot in November. If you are elected, refusal is not an option. The second place person will be Vice President. The Secret Service will come collect you at the appropriate time for your swearing in and oath of office."

I'd then legalize bribery, as long as it's 1) fully reported (who bribed who for what and with what amount) and 2) taxable. With a wholesale changing of congress every 2 years (plus 1/3 of the senate as well), the Megacorps would quickly bribe themselves outta existence, the government would make good cash on the taxes, and the congressfolks would get well-rewarded for their involuntary service to the country.

Hell, it can't be any worse than what we've got now, and it'd be a helluva lot more entertaining.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Its really a beautiful political statement: vote for my opponent and the terrorists win. Why vote for me based on my platform? No need! Not only am I the morally right choice I am the only choice. Who cares what I may or may not have done during my time in office because if you don't vote for me you're voting for terrorism!

The ultimate in partisan politics, kind of funny since not too long ago marden was calling for democrats and republicans to put aside petty difference and realize a common enemy. ts hilarious that marden thinks muslims are going to try and conquer and enslave us. Hell, even the worst of them have no interest in us at all: they just want us dead. I wonder if marden has thought of the scenario playing out in other countries: xenophobia causing internal violence.

Anyway, happy jihad marden.

invisibleX, the original post points out that respected terrorist expert Michael Scheuer came up with this analysis, not marden.

Is someone obsessed with marden? Hmmm?

Marden loves posters who read every word of his posts.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Post of the week

... though, you forgot to note the score of 9.8 awarded from the Jihadist nations.

I thought he was waiting until Iraq joined their ranks.

[marden]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Thanks, voting democrat.

Get rid of the Republicans in power who has no plan, no strategy, no solution on fighting terrorism.

The plan goes like this:

1) Help set up a government

2) Help set up the military & infrastructure

3) Leave

And if you say that we should leave Iraq before we figure out a method of stopping the jihadist violence so it can make it's way to the rest of the world and eventually here without finding the way to stop it?

I'd say that's absolutely brilliant!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

The plan goes like this:

1) Help set up a government

2) Help set up the military & infrastructure

3) Leave

And if you say that we should leave Iraq before we figure out a method of stopping the jihadist violence so it can make it's way to the rest of the world and eventually here without finding the way to stop it?

I'd say that's absolutely brilliant!

That's not a plan, that's an outline, a beginning to a plan.

Here's my "plan":

Get rich

Marry supermodel

Retire

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by marden 

invisibleX, the original post points out that respected terrorist expert Michael Scheuer came up with this analysis, not marden.

Is someone obsessed with marden? Hmmm?

Marden loves posters who read every word of his posts.

Quoting implies you agree with the quoted views, thus I will treat them as such. I could find some "respected" "expert" arguing virtually anything. Unfortunately neither of these qualities make them correct. The most pathetic thing is that you can't even formulate an original idea: just more vomit from the internet.

I haven't read your insane ramblings for almost a month. This does not mean I have amnesia like yourself. Should I dig up some of your posts from when your current persona started posting?

Marden doesn't post many words at all. In fact marden cannot even type an analogy with quoting a third party.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

That's not a plan, that's an outline, a beginning to a plan.

Here's my "plan":

Get rich

Marry supermodel

Retire

When your first attempts to get rich don't work do you forget the whole thing?

When a supermodel shoots you down once, do you Cut N Run?

And when you can't, uh, consummate the deal with her do you just PULL OUT and go home?

Or do you keep trying until you achieve your goal?

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Quoting implies you agree with the quoted views, thus I will treat them as such. I could find some "respected" "expert" arguing virtually anything. Unfortunately neither of these qualities make them correct. The most pathetic thing is that you can't even formulate an original idea: just more vomit from the internet.

I haven't read your insane ramblings for almost a month. This does not mean I have amnesia like yourself. Should I dig up some of your posts from when your current persona started posting?

Marden doesn't post many words at all. In fact marden cannot even type an analogy with quoting a third party.

I sense you are grasping for straws so I'll give you a break.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

When your first attempts to get rich don't work do you forget the whole thing?

When a supermodel shoots you down once, do you Cut N Run?

And when you can't, uh, consummate the deal with her do you just PULL OUT and go home?

Or do you keep trying until you achieve your goal?

Obviously, the point of my post flew well above your head.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I want to do away with the two party system. It's not longer about what is good for the country. But how can we make "the other side" look bad. And what is good for "our side"

Hard to do that when there are "no sides"

We can dream. Instant runoff voting would be a start; then folks could vote on issues without feeling the need to "support the party". But good luck changing anything, since the Democrats and the Republicans control it all, and they quite like the status quo.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Obviously, the point of my post flew well above your head.

I always wonder why it is when I post rings around some of you that you can seriously think there are things that fly over my head.

What you were trying to say is that just because the desire or the dream exists that that doesn't mean there is a plan.

And what I am saying is that where you may have accepted that it really is an unachievable dream for you to become rich, marry a supermodel and retire, it is not unrealistic to oppose jihad in Iraq and to establish a representative government there.

And instead of just giving up there are some people who do not accept failure as an option and that is the attitude we have. We are applying the lessons of past wars and they have been found less that optimally effective and so we have tried different tactics and when the enemy changed their strategies we devised new tactics. Anything less than that and we might as well just start studying the Koran now.

[Rumor]

Point being that it's good to have goals, but without what goes in between, there is no plan.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

I always wonder why it is when I post rings around some of you that you can seriously think there are things that fly over my head.

Posting quotes from others and news articles is hardly posting rings around people. The majority of your "opinions" come right out of the GOP's Guide to Being an Unquestioning Drone.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Point being that it's good to have goals, but without what goes in between, there is no plan.

And as my other thread says, iraq is where we will learn how to stop jihad. And we are helping the Iraqis stand on their own as we make the jihadists pay for their victories or deny them the victories they seek.

What was the plan to cure AIDS?

There was no plan. They simply used existing methodologies and saw what worked and what didn't and tried new ones and monitored the results until they saw avenues of treatment that looked promising and they poured resources into exploring those avenues.

And then someone else came up with a different idea that looked promising and that was tried. And the research goes on.

Same in Iraq.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Posting quotes from others and news articles is hardly posting rings around people. The majority of your "opinions" come right out of the GOP's Guide to Being an Unquestioning Drone.

I guess that shows to go ya. Maybe I know a couple of things about all of this that you don't.

[turtle777]

Post and run reported.

-t

[marden]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Post and run reported.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

Good thing I'm not drinking milk or it would shoot out my nose. Downright funny post.

I'm stuck - I'm in favor of aggressive action to deal with terrorism. Fighting the war "over there" rather than here.

I don't think I bought into this before the war. Though I would have to say there is an ironic self-fulfilling aspect to it. In other words, this has become a wise policy now as a response to our overwhelming botch. I can't say the Republicans deserve my vote for that.

Either way though, I am a "once we're there, we're there" type. The time for pussyfooting around whether we should have been there in the first place is long gone. The Republicans do get my vote for that.

But this brings us back to the botch job. Wow. Just, wow. Not only do the Republicans lose my vote here, I want to rise from the dead in true Chicago fashion and vote against them again.

Which brings us to the Democrats. I've been screaming at them for months now. The Democrats talk all day long about how ****ed-up things are in Iraq. Who do you think made it that way? US, YOU ****ING MORONS!

I normally don't get this emotional, but when I hear, say, Eleanor Clift (who I love) bitch out the Iraqis for not taking proper charge of things, I want to jump through the television and spit on her.

It's all the nasty crap the Republicans accuse the Democrats of, except in this case it's true. Rather than stand up for the oppressed, and not just the oppressed, people we oppressed for Christ's sake, the Democrats look out for themselves, take the politically expedient route, and tell the Iraqi's to go **** themselves. The Democrats have just bitched, bitched, bitched, and somehow after pointing out everything we have done wrong, they figure the most responsible way to take care of this gross injustice is to run away from it?

I went to a hippy grade school. We were taught to clean up our messes.

They still get my vote though. The best way I can explain it is that the Democrats act like Democrats. I'm sure someone wants to jump in here and point to the example I gave above, but what I'm talking about is them being anti-war. I'm not personally anti-war, but it's something I know and expect the party to be.

This gets them my vote, not for being opposite of what I think, but because it's just another thing the Republicans were arrogant about to the point of hubris.

I've heard the Republicans say that the Democrats were unwilling to be satisfied with the progress of the war from the beginning, even though most in Congress voted for it. I also believe this to be true, though I may have different reasons than most. While some would say it was just politically expedient (which to some extent it was), a huge factor was Bush's honey-tounged, whispering sweet WMDs in our ear.

After Bush got the vote, he stopped returning our phone calls.

Everyone talks about him "planning for the war and not the peace", what gets me is that they never seemed to plan for (or alter their plans once they realized) the fact that there is an anti-war Party, and it's supported by, oh, half the country.

I've tried to pass along the hint to those it would concern. If you want to keep a war afloat, you need to give the anti-war people at least one massage with a happy ending every once in awhile. This technical term for this is "politics".

The Republicans have completely abandoned this. If I can steal a phrase from Besson3c used in an entirely different context, the Republicans have been "gaming the system". This has achieved them maximum short-term gains, but I honestly think it's breaking the system. It just wasn't designed for people to take advantage of it the way they have been for the past six years.

So the Democrats get my vote. I'm not too scared of them "gaming the system". It's not in their profile, and if there's anything the Democrats suck at it's aping the Republicans.

I guess my slogan is:

Vote Democrat - the Devil you Know™

P.S. I thank you and everyone else for your compliments.