Okay, I'll play.

Post #151,612 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:09:13 PM Reply	Okay, I'll play. Exactly, why did we need to get rid of Saddam? And please, don't lecture me about what an evil bastard he is/was. I was screaming about that when you were probably still in high school and I was in college back when Saddam was "the leading force for moderation in the region" according to the Reagan Administration (circa that famous handshake above).
Post #151,615 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:17:20 PM Reply	We didn't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Do you stroll into Libya and arrest Khadaffi? He bankrolled the bombing of a 747. We arrested those "responsible", but we didn't get all of those complicit in the attack. The point being, fighting terrorism is NOT as simple as "arresting terrorists". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,621 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:31:18 PM 4/18/04 3:34:08 PM Reply	? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Central America anyone? Or are "Death Squads" not terrorists? The United States (in particular the United States when run by folks like Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.) has a history of supporting terrorists. I'm just cautioning you about living in a glass house and pitching rocks. [Edit: Supporting terrorists, not terrorist nations] Edited by mmoffitt April 18, 2004, 03:34:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,624 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:40:03 PM Reply	So fine. What do you do? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,626 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:58:18 PM Reply	Vote for smarter people ;0) I saw Kerry on "Face the Nation" today. I'd go along with him for the most part. Russert tried to beat him up over his position that fighting terrorism "is not primarily a military action" but a primarily a law enforcement, intelligence action. Bombing Iraq for the sake of "defendin' mah daddee" didn't do a lot for rooting out terrorist organizations (which, mind you, I do not think are that great a threat in the first place. Sure, we should pay attention. Sure, we can't have slackers in the CIA, FBI and White House. Yes, we've got to have a President who pays attention even when he is on the longest Presidential Vacation in history. But most Americans - no, probably ALL Americans are more likely to be killed by their automobiles on the way to work than they are to become a victim of terrorism). In pursuing those responsible for 9/11, imagine where Osama would be today if we had sent the same number of troops into Afghanistan when we had Osama cornered in Tora Bora as we sent into Iraq. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it is clear to me that the current crop has none of the answers.
Post #151,707 by bepatient 4/18/04 10:55:33 PM Reply	I wish there were some to vote for. We're back to a lesser of 2 evils choice again. It would be nice to see someone smart actually run. Unfortunately, the fact that their smart automatically excludes them from consideration. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!