This just in from John Kerry:

[Lasher]

I think it was right after I heard "Mission Accomplished."

You want entertainment, go read the 2004 debate transcripts:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

'It's hard'

 

[Ham Murabi]

I find the focus on Kerry to be more and more amusing. Bush expects everyone to be up in arms because Kerry insulted the troops, when Bush's stupid comment of "bring it on" actually endangered them.

Pretty unbelieveable if you ask me.

Rather than "bring it on" after 9/11, would you prefer "we're sorry, what did we do wrong"?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Rather than "bring it on" after 9/11, would you prefer "we're sorry, what did we do wrong"?

"Here's your prayer mat, Mecca is that way."

 

[Ham Murabi]

"Here's your prayer mat, Mecca is that way."

Some people here must have been shitting their pants when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

 

[Peregrinator]

Some people here must have been shitting their pants when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

I would have been, if Reagan had invaded the Soviet Union to get it to happen.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I would have been, if Reagan had invaded the Soviet Union to get it to happen.

So, how many prayer mats should we put you down for since thats about the only way to pacify the terrorists?

 

[Peregrinator]

So, how many prayer mats should we put you down for since thats about the only way to pacify the terrorists?

I don't think it's either/or. You present me with a black/white choice. The world isn't monochromatic.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I don't think it's either/or. You present me with a black/white choice. The world isn't monochromatic.

Well what are the choices then? Sit back and hope they change their minds, negotiate some kind of peace, become an isolationist nation...

 

[Lasher]

Some people here must have been shitting their pants when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Why? Reagan said that in June of '87. The only people shitting their pants at that point were those trying to fix the Soviet Economy.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Why? Reagan said that in June of '87. The only people shitting their pants at that point were those trying to fix the Soviet Economy.

And the news anchors at ABC, NBC and CBS.

 

[Peregrinator]

Well what are the choices then? Sit back and hope they change their minds, negotiate some kind of peace, become an isolationist nation...

Multi-pronged truly coalition-based approach with sticks AND carrots. Cooperative law-enforcement, intelligence and military action. Improve diplomatic relations with non-terrorist countries to improve the chances of catching plots before they can be brought into action. Help neutral but struggling countries with infrastructure and health issues to discourage them from hosting training camps or looking the other way. Reach out to peaceful Muslims and encourage them not to support the terrorist extremists.

Live in the world, in a phrase.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Multi-pronged truly coalition-based approach with sticks AND carrots. Cooperative law-enforcement, intelligence and military action. Improve diplomatic relations with non-terrorist countries to improve the chances of catching plots before they can be brought into action. Help neutral but struggling countries with infrastructure and health issues to discourage them from hosting training camps or looking the other way. Reach out to peaceful Muslims and encourage them not to support the terrorist extremists.

Live in the world, in a phrase.

Don't see any sticks there... Just hopes of paying off groups for protection...

 

[Peregrinator]

Don't see any sticks there... Just hopes of paying off groups for protection...

Economic sanctions against uncooperative countries. Bombs for training camps. Swift and harsh penalties for those convicted by due process. Etc.

 

[Lasher]

Economic sanctions against uncooperative countries. Bombs for training camps. Swift and harsh penalties for those convicted by due process. Etc.

But where's the banners and catch phrases?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Economic sanctions against uncooperative countries. Bombs for training camps. Swift and harsh penalties for those convicted by due process. Etc.

And this will work when it didn't before?

 

[Peregrinator]

And this will work when it didn't before?

Not by itself. Frankly, I don't think anything we do alone will "work." We need the rest of the world to be on board, and they're not. I'm not talking about appeasement of terrorists, I'm talking about diplomatic intervention with uncooperative/unaligned countries.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Not by itself. Frankly, I don't think anything we do alone will "work." We need the rest of the world to be on board, and they're not. I'm not talking about appeasement of terrorists, I'm talking about diplomatic intervention with uncooperative/unaligned countries.

We can barely get any kind of consensus on the North Korea and Iran situations so how could we on this?

 

[zipman]

Since I have ya here...

What do you make of the hype over this report of findings showing that the Saddam regime was still pursuing and/or had some nuclear weapon making capabilities after the end of the '91 conflict?

Well, it's not a smoking gun in my book. I don't think anyone doubted that he was after them and that he had at least some technology towards that end. However, I don't think it went beyond that and I don't think he was any closer in 2000 than he was back then due to the sanctions.

 

[Peregrinator]

We can barely get any kind of consensus on the North Korea and Iran situations so how could we on this?

This is probably my biggest problem with Bush. The world hates him. I don't think he's especially awful as a chief executive officer for the country, but as a diplomat he's appalling. (Did I spell that right?)

I'd like to see someone in office with the diplomatic star power of Bill Clinton. I know, his policies are unpopular here, but as an international diplomat, there may not be anyone with the clout and ability he has. Who the next person will be with that charisma, I don't know.

 

[Peregrinator]

Well, it's not a smoking gun in my book. I don't think anyone doubted that he was after them and that he had at least some technology towards that end. However, I don't think it went beyond that and I don't think he was any closer in 2000 than he was back then due to the sanctions.

The most credible theory I've heard is that Sadaam actually thought he had them, when he didn't. His own peeps were lying to him, because they were afraid to tell him otherwise.

 

[zipman]

Rather than "bring it on" after 9/11, would you prefer "we're sorry, what did we do wrong"?

How about not making idiotic comments? That's the point.

Kerry's didn't endanger the troops and Bush's did. Which do you think is worse?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

This is probably my biggest problem with Bush. The world hates him. I don't think he's especially awful as a chief executive officer for the country, but as a diplomat he's appalling. (Did I spell that right?)

I'd like to see someone in office with the diplomatic star power of Bill Clinton. I know, his policies are unpopular here, but as an international diplomat, there may not be anyone with the clout and ability he has. Who the next person will be with that charisma, I don't know.

Even with Clinton at the helm though countries and terror groups were still roaming pretty freely. Or better said, certain ones were. How many resolutions did Iraq violate and how many terror attacks occured. The world just doesn't take this shit too seriously even when it isn't the US who is the target.

 

[garbage can]

Why? Reagan said that in June of '87. The only people shitting their pants at that point were those trying to fix the Soviet Economy.

HUH...

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Well, it's not a smoking gun in my book. I don't think anyone doubted that he was after them and that he had at least some technology towards that end. However, I don't think it went beyond that and I don't think he was any closer in 2000 than he was back then due to the sanctions.

Yeah thats kind of how my thinking has landed. Though I can see how it could maybe lend some creedence to some of the claims used to go into Iraq. Though its definitely correct to say that whatever technology they had wasn't enough to attack us.

 

[Peregrinator]

Even with Clinton at the helm though countries and terror groups were still roaming pretty freely. Or better said, certain ones were. How many resolutions did Iraq violate and how many terror attacks occured. The world just doesn't take this shit too seriously even when it isn't the US who is the target.

Hence the need for a multi-pronged approach, which is what I've been saying. Clinton dropped some of the balls. Bush has dropped different ones. We need them all in the air.