It's been a while since I've visited, so I thought I drop by and offer some food for thought. The link posted below will take you to an article that was published as a full page display ad published in the October 2, 2006 Seattle Times (page 5). It offers some interesting points to ponder.

http://img.travidia.com/rop-ad/3564853

Yes we are, thanks for playing.

hey jackass, while I agree with you on principle... I dont read articles that someone posted on a picture.

its against my policy.

Argumentum ad hominem

It's currently the only way I've been able to get a copy. I suppose I could mail you an original...

Didn't read the article, ay?

Let me guess it goes something like:

OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING TERRORIST RECRUIT MORE OH NOOOO!!!!!!

[font=Tahoma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manifesto while I agree with you on principle... I dont read articles that someone posted on a picture its against my policy.

The text of the editorial follows my response to Billy’s comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy the Kidd Let me guess it goes something like OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING TERRORIST RECRUIT MORE OH NOOOO!!!!!!

Oops, ya guessed wrong. The worlds not coming to an end, as much as radical X’tians would like it to be, and the ‘Publicans didn’t get us into this by themselves. The Dummycrats were arm in arm with Shrub and his cronies marching into war in Iraq. There were very few of us who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning.

The text of the editorial in the Seattle Time follows.

Are You Safer Now Than You Were In 2000?
By Steven Greenebaum

The President wants us to forget the Iraq war, and let him do what ever he wants because “only he” can keep us safe. The emperor Bush isn’t wearing any clothes, and it’s time someone called him on it.

George Bush can keep us safe? In 2000 the United States elected a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House. At that time the United States had a huge budget surplus. Our Social Security and Medicare problems were solvable.

Today, all but forgotten because of the war in Iraq, we have a massive budget deficit. Both Social Security and Medicare are well on their way to going broke. Does that make you feel safe?

After 9-11, the country supported going after the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But then the Bush administration decided to leave the fight in Afghanistan unfinished and go after Iraq.

Going to war in Iraq meant leaving the war on terrorism on hold. The war on terrorism was in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. Did starting a new war make us safe?

The Bush Administration claimed there were ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There weren’t. It claimed Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. He didn’t. It claimed that there was a massive program to produce weapons of mass destruction. There wasn’t. It asked Congress for a carte blanche to go to war with Iraq, promising that war would be the very last resort. But it wasn’t.

By waging an unnecessary, badly executed war in Iraq, the Bush Administration succeeded in convincing even moderate Muslims that the United States is fighting a holy war against them. Has that made us safe?

The Iraqi war has created a recruiting and training ground for terrorists (all of our intelligence agencies agree this is true). Did that make us safe?

The war has also removed the only natural counterbalance to radical Iran. Saddam and Iran were mortal enemies. Now Iran has no counter-force to it power. Did that make us safe?

By pouring billions of dollars into Iraq, by squandering more than 2500 precious American lives and many thousands of American wounded, the United States is ill equipped to protect itself. It’s not just Katrina. Our ports are under protected. Our chemical plants are under protected. Much of the U.S. remains vulnerable because, “there just isn’t enough money,” while our armed forces are stretched to the limit. Has that made us safe?

By pulling out of Afghanistan prematurely in order to invade Iraq, we have left Afghanistan in peril. Now the Taliban is back – both threatening the government and exporting massive amounts of drugs – largely because we didn’t finish the job we started. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Has that made us safe?

The resounding answer to these questions is NO! The actions of the President and Congress have put our seniors at risk, put our troops at risk and created a breeding ground for new terrorists which virtually assures that we will indeed be attacked again. The President is right that we can’t simply leave Iraq. But should the same people whose mistruths, half-truths, and total ineptness have turned a war that never should have been fought into a disaster, be trusted to have the honesty and competency to solve the problem they created. Does that make sense?

The Bush Administration is good at spin. It is GREAT at spin. But will sin make us safe?

Criticize the Democrats all you want, and there’s plenty to criticize. But this much is clear. Six years of the emperor Bush and a Republican Congress have left the United States massively weakened and very unsafe indeed.

I would have felt much better if Afghanistan was secured a lot better before taking on Iraq.

It is possible that Iraq was taken only as a strategic location (other than the oil) to be able to get an entrance into Iran. Ofcourse, that isn't working out too well since a sectarian civil war has started and we're stuck in a 2 front war which may possibly become a 3 front war if NK blows up a nuke. America's enemies are obviously watching for all our weaknesses and right now a lot of them have been exposed.

Israel wasn't able to deal any heavy blow to Hezbollah either and they aren't feared as much now. The only resort most of the world's idiot powers have to any decisive victory are nukes because the battle field is slowing levelling.

No, I don't think we're safer not only because of an increased threat of terrorists, or because of the lack of money but because of the laws that have come into place that can potentially be used against Americans by, if not bush, then any corrupt leader of the US in the future.

Terrsts hate us for our freedoms so we obviously have to give them up and then they'll leave us alone.

TLDR

PS there are not radical christians, theres just radical athiests who see anyone with faith as radical.

Civil war is good. How do you think the British empire controlled the world? A soldier in every house? It was by playing people against one and other and then leaving the winning team in control as a proxy or by killing off the winner themselves.

Iraq is central to the war on terror, Afghanistan is not. Afghanistan is a shithole in the middle of some mountains with some people growing opium. Iraq is an actual somewhat civilized nation that can become a powerful ally once we get it set up.

The war isnt about oil, thats just a silly democrat/nutroot liberal talking point. Think for yourself.

Domestic entitlements are a bit different from security issues, but I'll bite.

The surplus never existed. It was based on projections that couldn't account for events that would affect the economy. The projections were made in the late 90s and ignored the natural business cycle. The economy goes up and down no matter who we vote for, at some point around the mid term of the next president, no matter who it is, the economy will take a down turn, and that's if we don't have any more cataclysmic events, which is unlikely. The surplus projections assumed that the econmy would just keep going up and up and up forever. It was a political document designed to help Gore in the 2000 election. If you remember, which you probably don't, during the 2000 campaign Bush was predicting a recession and the newsmedia was howling about it.

I remember it because the economy was going south before the election. I lost a job over it. Then we had the Enron debacle, which spilled over into the rest of the economy, then 9/11. It's a goddamn miracle we weren't all standing in soup lines after all those hits. That tells you how resilient the US economy really is.

In spite of Bush having the pure huge balls to make Social Security reform part of his campaign through two elections, congress stopped it because they are still stuck in the mindset that if you touch SS in any way, you will be voted out. The only medicare reform that has happened was to add a huge new drug program. That's why SS and Medicare were unsolvable. The political will to do so doesn't exist yet, and it won't until all you young'uns get pissed off about your payroll taxes going up and up and up after the baby-boomers retire, which WILL happen.

The war on terrorism was always against Iran. Re-read all the post 9/11 speeches, and you'll see the clues. The geopolitical situation being what it is, he couldn't just come right out and say it. Look at which nation is on the border of both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not a coincidence. The writer of this piece of shit has a small mind that is incapable of long term strategic thought.

Saddam was running a huge scam. The intelligence agencies of nations all over the world agreed that all the Bush administration's conclusions were true, even France and Russia, who did everything they could do in the UN to stop our invasion. Saddam didn't have the WMD because he was scared of what the world might do about it, but he let all his neighbors think that he did because his head would have ended up on a plate if they knew he was bluffing. He was walking a tightrope all through the 90s. The shortsighted writer of this is betting on all of you being too ignorant to know that. Statistically, it's a safe bet.


I agree that the war is badly executed. We're too nice to win a war like this. The only way these people will stop their little revolution is if we go Roman on them. Everytime an IED goes off, an airstrike should be called in to flatten the entire area, and I don't give a fuck if there's a school full of kids there. It's how THEY fight a war, and it's the only thing they respect.

There's no such thing as a "moderate" muslim, but nobody will admit it. They made it a holy war, not us, and we had better start fighting it in that context, or we will lose.

Recruiting ground for terrorists?
WELL NO FUCKING SHIT, SHERLOCK!!!!
What a surprise, they're fighting back! Who'd've thunk that?

The biggest mistake in the plan was assuming that such a thing as a peace and freedom loving muslim exists. Freedom and democracy are incompatible with Islam, but if you say that, you'll be called a racist or some such thing.

I addressed the counter-balance earlier. Saddam had to be neutralized before the real move on Iran could happen.

How many ranks of bodies do we need to surround everything with? Defense is impractical. We simply can't defend every potential target against terrorists. Just try to think about it for a minute and you'll see how ridiculous the idea is. You defend against terror by going to where the terrorists live, and killing them.

We didn't finish the job because it can't be finished. Does anyone remember that guy in Afghanistan a few months ago who was charged with the heinous crime of converting to a religion other than Islam? He was saved with backroom intervention, but we didn't demand that they change their constitution to prevent it in the future, and we won't, because we still have a happy sunshine and lolipops view of the potential of "peaceful muslims". Afghanistan is going to fall apart as soon as we leave, but it doesn't matter if Iran is neutralized before that happens.

The reason we don't have Bin Laden is because he's not living in a cave. He's living in a palace in a nation that we can't touch right now for some reason.

This really is pathetic. It's the obligatory "I'm not biased against any political party, this is just my honest asessment." and it's a fucking lie.

I have not read your whole post but this stood out:

I usually don't bring personal stuff out on the forums but I just wanted to say that I think I'm a pretty moderate muslim. I was born in a muslim family. I don't practice any ancient traditions and neither does most of my family. I don't hate women and I abhor burqas. I've completed college and studying some more. I have never done any female circumcisions and I don't have a dirty yellow beard.

For earning money I do computer techy stuff, I paint, and I write. I have a double major of CS and MS and I had an art minor. I have never donated money to any religious fund and I don't support any crazies anywhere.

So, am I a moderate muslim? or is your definition of a muslim something like "crazy looney who can't be sane" in which case you believe that I'm not a muslim?

Some times I feel like a unicorn or some other mystical creature.

Yes, there are millions of muslims who would love to kill me simply because I'm an American, or because I don't believe in all their retarded beliefs. From my point of view, they are a bunch of criminal lunatics who are not at all civilized. A "holy book" can not make you into a terrorist.

So, have I at all changed your mind? or do you think that I'm one of Them?

I'm definately not an atheist.

I don't veiw people of faith, ANY faith as radicals, unless they behave radically.

Advocating the destruction of any faith other than your own is behaving radically.

There are plenty of Christians who advocate the destruction of other faiths.

therefore;

There are radical Christians.

The existance of any surplus prior to 2000 was no doubt arguable. But at least it was arguable. Now, however, thanks to that unecessary mess in Iraq that we've poured several hundred BILLION dollars into, even the remotest chance of doing anything useful with Social Security or Medicare has evaprated.

...and I lost a business as a direct result of the effect of the Iraqi war on the economy... Yep, it's resilient alright. It has, thus far, managed to withstand the onslaught of a war that is less useful and more expensive than Vietnam.

On this we agree young'ung?

I was in boot camp before you were in grade school.