How Long Are You /willing To Be At War?

BPB - Unfortunately, neither the President nor his opponant agree with this position.

Revelations 3:16

"So because you are lukewarm and neither hot or cold I will vomit you out of my mouth"

Son of God or not, a great comment on commitment......

It is impossible to commit when one has no way of knowing how long an open ended job will take.

And yes, setting arbitrary deadlines to defeat an enemy as widespread and elusive as the terrorist are is stupid. But Kerry might do it if elected.

Larry, can you quit the bold italics gimmick?

It's annoying to read.

Cycloptichorn

I use it to set it apart from the quoted text, cy. Can't understand why it is annoying. How about just plain bold?

Anything is better, lol, thanks!

Don't know if it's just my comp. but it's hard to read with both bold and italics.

Cycloptichorn

You got it. No more italics. But the annoying content will remain. :wink:

If this war is not over by 11:33 PM (EST) January 19th 2047, I will no longer support president George W. Bush IV.

Now there's commitment!

There you go Bear. A man who is willing to set the deadline. :wink:

Yeah, I agree with coach, but I'll have to ask him to make sure about taking away that support on exactly that date and time, because I'll be long gone.

Bear, a more pertinent question would be:"How many of your children would you sacrifice for the stability of Iraq"?

That's a 'Do you still beat your wife?' question, Pan.

No matter what they answer, the answer is unacceptable. I see the point you are trying to make but it's an unfair tactic in a debate.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe that's what I said. I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that. Let me rephase in such a way even you can understand it.

Bush believes much of the same stuff as I do. More than Kerry does. I believe Bush better represents me than Kerry does.

Cyclo, No worse than the tactics being used by the current contenders for the w.h.

No matter what anyone answered to the thread question it would be unacceptable so I guess I made my point.

I agree completely CI!

But we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Can't yell at someone for using dirty tactics and then use them yerself.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with that too!

Larry says -

And yes, setting arbitrary deadlines to defeat an enemy as widespread and elusive as the terrorist are is stupid. But Kerry might do it if elected.[/quote]

With regard to IRAQ, I would tend to agree that Kerry will somehow further destabilize an already unstable situation by attempting to introduce the "GLOBAL TEST" with Nations who have already stated they want no part. France and Germany "got caught with their hands in the cookie jar" relative to the Oil for Food program. Only if WE pay them extortion, might they assist.

I would reject that and this is a main reason I reject Kerry as an alternative to GW.

The question is a bit hard one to answer. No one knows how long this terror war against AQ and people like Bin Laden is going to last.

I am not sure what we can do to make Bin Laden happy because I don't know what we did really that made him so mad at the United States. So I am not sure what good talking is going to do.

I also don't think we can invade every single country where these cells are at (or simliar cells). I think as bad as it sounds all we can do is offense in regards to AQ and similar organizations.

But as for the world in general we can listen and talk more openly with them instead of to them. That would help peace a whole lot.

But as far as Iraq goes, in my opinion we ought to let all of the profits of oil that can be made over there go to Iraqi'sto get rid of the notion that we are there to steal their oil so that we can get control of the middle east. That would go a long way in creating peace. But we can't just get out of there and let the Iraqi's fend for themselves after destroying their country and inciting terrorist to come in.