What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable.

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable.

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

My concern with winning the Congress and Executive is because I fear that the Democrats would adopt policies and measures that would harm the nation
s security, while increasing the National Debt to pay for items that are of lower priority than winning a war. While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable. While the war lasts, every other Federal expenditure needs to be curbed.

Asherman wrote:

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

My concern with winning the Congress and Executive is because I fear that the Democrats would adopt policies and measures that would harm the nation
s security, while increasing the National Debt to pay for items that are of lower priority than winning a war. While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable. While the war lasts, every other Federal expenditure needs to be curbed.

well take a look around Sluggo, are we in great shape today as a result of the current morons and criminals policies?

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

this winning the war bullshit is just retarded. Who is the enemy? An idea. A constantly shifting and moving target that, like a virus mutates and changes everytime you think you have it. If "winning" is the only concern then break out the nukes right this f**king second and kill them all. Of course that will kill "us" in the process but hey.... you can't make an an omelette.....

bi- I understand your frustration. The problem is that we are fighting a war with people who have been pissed off at the West for over a thousand years. Recently, they have become more organized, and have the cash to back them up. Also, they are raising a generation of idiot children who think the greatest thing in the world is to die for Allah, and become a martyr.

What would you suggest? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away? Pandora's box has been opened, and we must deal with it, or we will be destroyed.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

bi- I understand your frustration. The problem is that we are fighting a war with people who have been pissed off at the West for over a thousand years. Recently, they have become more organized, and have the cash to back them up. Also, they are raising a generation of idiot children who think the greatest thing in the world is to die for Allah, and become a martyr.

What would you suggest? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away? Pandora's box has been opened, and we must deal with it, or we will be destroyed.

Well, look at Iran, for example. The premise here seems to be: either allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, mount them on ballistic missiles and threaten the Middle East, Europe and America with them. Or go to war, launch a massive attack, and, if it is "necessary", nuke them. Black or white. Everything or nothing.

That's the same rethoric we have heard before the invasion of Iraq, and at least in hindsight it should be obvious to everybody that Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror", that the invasion reduced America's ability to react to real terrorist threats, that it allowed Al Qaeda to reorganize, and that it created a quagmire in the Middle East where thousands of Iraqis are dying every month. Yes, talk about a "breeding ground for terrorists".

Sure, that is a situation that will have to be handled carefully. But I don't think that it can be handled by people with the same neocon mindset like those who were responsible for the quagmire in the first place.

My concern with winning the Congress and Executive is because I fear that the Democrats would adopt policies and measures that would harm the nation
s security, while increasing the National Debt to pay for items that are of lower priority than winning a war. While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary.

You should edit the poll to include "Absolutely, Positively no Billary".

I think I hit a nerve - surprised any of 'em still work...

Asherman wrote:

My concern with winning the Congress and Executive is because I fear that the Democrats would adopt policies and measures that would harm the nation
s security, while increasing the National Debt to pay for items that are of lower priority than winning a war. While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary.

Also, what I don't understand is this idea that the war in Iraq and the "War on Terror" are supposed to be the same thing. That people seem to believe that the guy with the most nervous finger on the nuclear trigger is the one who can protect America in the most effective way against terrorism. That a willingness to invade other nations is a key element in protecting America against another 9/11.

Just look at all the terrorist attacks or attempts to attack Western nations since 2001. How many, exactly, where planned or perpetrated by people from Iraq or Afghanistan? I think the current number is about zero.

The attempt to wreak havoc upon New York by attacking JFK airport? Not connected to Iraq. Not connected to Afghanistan. Not connected to Al Qaeda. Not financed by any "terrorist network".

The sheer idea of being able to stop these kind of attacks by killing people in Iraq seems to be so ridiculous that it's hard to believe that somebody would actually fall for that. No massive military intervention has ever stopped the threat of terrorism, in any country.

And then think of the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into that misadventure... Doesn't that make you wonder how effective the control of American ports, of American borders, of cooperation between the various agencies could be today if all that money had been invested in some actual homeland security measures?

Of course, now you're stuck with the war in Iraq, and, again, the situation will have to be handled carefully. Merely declaring "we're outta here" won't do it. You'll need somebody who will be able to extricate the nation from that quagmire in a way that doesn't hand over Iraq to the extremists. But that won't be done by someone declaring "Well, if in doubt, we can still nuke Tehran."