Log in

View Full Version : If you vote Democrat



Sasaki Kojiro
10-26-2006, 01:57
This is what will happen:


December 7, 2008
The New Media Journal - Raymond S. Kraft - October 24, 2006


December 7, 2008, began inauspiciously.

At 0753 at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the attack that had triggered America's entry into World War II, sixty-seven years before, was ceremoniously commemorated, an honor guard, taps, a 21-gun salute, the bugle's notes and the rifles' crack drifting across the bay to the USS Arizona memorial, where Admiral Arthur Peterson, USN Ret., laid a wreath in memory of the sailors sleeping below, one of whom was his own grandfather.

On the West coast it was 1053, and in Washington D.C. it was one fifty-three in the afternoon, 1353 military time.

In 2006 America, tired of War in Iraq, had elected Democrats to modest majorities in both houses of Congress. Representative Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency. In the spring of 2007, on a narrow, party-line vote, Congress, led by Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer refused to authorize spending to continue the war in Iraq, and set September 30, 2007, as the deadline for complete withdrawal of American troops.

President Bush spoke to the country, to the American forces in Iraq, to those who had been there, and to the Iraqi people, to apologize for the short-sightedness and irresponsibility of the American congress and the tragedy he believed would follow after leaving task of nurturing a representative and stable government in Iraq half done, his voice choked, tears running down his stoic face, a betrayal of emotion for which he was resoundingly criticized and denounced in much of America's media.

The level of violence across Iraq immediately subsided, as the Americans began preparations to redeploy back to the States. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised the new Congress for its clear vision and sound judgment. America's Democrats rejoiced and congratulated themselves for bringing peace with honor and ending the illegal war based on lies that George Bush had begun only to enrich his friends in the military-industrial complex, and promised to retake the Presidency in 2008.

At 1000 on September 30, 2007, precisely on schedule, the last C-5A Galaxy carrying the last company of American combat troops in Iraq had roared down the Baghdad runway and lifted into the air. Only a few hundred American technical and military advisers and political liaisons remained in-country.

The Galaxy's wheels had scarcely retracted when Iraq erupted in the real civil war many had feared and foreseen, and which many others had predicted would not happen if only the American imperialists left Iraq. Sunni militias, Shia militias, and Al Qaeda militias ravaged and savaged the country, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis known or suspected to have collaborated with the Americans, killing Shias for being Shias, Sunnis for being Sunnis, Americans for being Americans, and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

By noon, not one of the American advisers and liaisons left behind remained alive. Many had been beheaded as they screamed. Most of their bodies were dumped in the river and never seen again. In the next thirty days more than a million Iraqis died. The General Assembly of the United Nations voted to condemn the violence, and recessed for lunch and martinis. In America, there was no political will to redeploy back to Iraq. And after a few months of rabid bloodletting, the situation in Iraq calmed to a tense simmer of sporadic violence and political jockeying, punctuated by the occasional assassination, while several million refugees fled the country. Only Kurdistan, in the north, which had thrown up a line of its Peshmurga fighters to keep the southern violence away, remained stable and at relative peace.

In the spring of 2008 America began its quadrennial circus of a national election, and in November elected a Democrat, the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as it next president, to the surprise of few. Her running mate, to the surprise of many, was San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose intelligence, charisma, and reputation as an indefatigable campaigner for gay marriage and the homeless of San Francisco helped solidify Clinton's support among liberal Democrats who only grudgingly forgave her for not openly opposing the Iraq war sooner, and the Clinton-Newsom ticket went to the top with a narrow 50.2% lead over Republican John McCain's 49.8% of the popular vote, despite, or perhaps because of, Clinton's and Newsom's lack of foreign policy and military experience.

America, or a slim voting majority of it, felt it had had all the war it ever wanted to see, and Hillary had led her party to a glorious (if narrow) victory with the unambiguous slogan: "Clinton & Newsom: No More War." Crowds at every whistle stop had cheered and chanted, No more war! No more war! No more war! At victory parties George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were hung and sometimes burned in effigy, enthusiastic crowds chanted "No more war!" many times more, and local bands cranked up the theme from the first Clinton electoral victory, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow...yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone...," and indeed, it was.

President Bush had been a very lame duck since the 2006 election, and with a Democratic Congress could do little but veto most of the bills it sent him. The Democrats couldn't override his vetoes, so for nearly two years almost nothing important had been accomplished by anyone on the Hill or in the White House. After the 2008 election it was transition time, flocks and herds of thoroughly demoralized Republican staff began leaving Washington in search of greener pastures, Congress adjourned for the Holidays, Democrats came house hunting, and Clinton and Newsom began the briefings they would get from a fully cooperative Bush administration on the state of the nation and the state of the world they would inherit and have to cope with for the next four years, or eight, and in those last weeks of November both Hillary and Gavin seemed to age rather quickly. The exhilaration of the campaign was over, and the weight of a tumultuous world began to settle on their shoulders.

Back in early October, 2006, North Korean President (for life) Kim Jong Il had announced the detonation of a nuclear bomb deep in a tunnel in the stony mountains of North Korea. The seismic signature had been small, and American intelligence at first doubted whether it had been a nuclear explosion at all. Traces of radioactive emissions were detected a few days later, and the intelligence estimate revised to conclude that it had been a failed test that produced perhaps only 10% or less of the expected yield, only 0.5 to 1.5 kilotons, not the 20 kilotons, at least, that Western intelligence had anticipated.

Kim Jong Il gloated. The deception had worked. The Americans were thinking in terms of long range intercontinental ballistic missiles with huge warheads that they could shoot out of the sky with their sophisticated billion-dollar anti-missile defense systems. He was thinking in terms of small warheads carried by small, medium range cruise missiles that could be launched from many places, and infiltrated close enough to slip in under the radar and hit America's coastal cities.

On the evening of December 6, 2008, a junior analyst in the National Security Agency was going over routine satellite photo production of ship movements in the Atlantic and Pacific within a thousand miles of the US coasts. Late in the shift he thought he saw something through a haze of fatigue and caffeine, and called a supervisor over to talk.

"Look," he said, photos up on several computer screens, more printed out and spread across his desk, "See? These boats, not big ships, fishing boats, yachts, they've been moving in along shipping lanes for several days, across from the South Pacific toward the West coast, up from the South Atlantic toward the east. Nothing very unusual, they're all small and slow, and scattered up and down the oceans, it seems, but if you look at the times and courses..." and he pulled out a chart he had plotted, "They're approaching so they will all arrive at about the same time, or all be about the same distance off the coast at about the same time...," he trailed off.

The supervisor looked a bit quizzical. "Coincidence? Probably. You need more sleep. Too much fun in the night, eh? Let me know if you see something we can do something with." And walked away.

At 0723 Hawaii time on the 67th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack three old fishing trawlers, about 100 miles apart, and each about 300 miles off the east coast, launched six small cruise missiles from launch tubes that could be dismantled and stored in the holds under ice, or fish, and set up in less than an hour. The missiles were launched at precisely one minute intervals. As soon as each boat had launched its pair, the skeleton crew began to abandon ship into a fast rubber inflatable. The captain was last off, and just before going overboard started the timer on the scuttling charges. Fifteen minutes later and ten miles away, each crew was going up the nets into a small freighter or tanker of Moroccan or Liberian registry, where each man was issued new identification as ship's crew. The rubber inflatables were shot and sunk, and just about then charges in the bilges of each of the three trawlers blew the hulls out, and they sank with no one on board and no distress signals in less than two minutes.

The missiles had been built in a joint operation by North Korea and Iran, and tested in Iran, so they would not have to overfly any other country. The small nuclear warheads had only been tested deep underground. The GPS guidance and detonating systems had worked perfectly, after a few corrections. They flew fifty feet above sea level, and 500 feet above ground level on the last leg of the trip, using computers and terrain data modified from open market technology and flight directors, autopilots, adapted from commercial aviation units. They would adjust speed to arrive on target at specific times and altitudes, and detonate upon reaching the programmed GPS coordinates. They were not as adaptable and intelligent as American cruise missiles, but they did not need to be. Not for this mission.

They were small, less than twenty feet long, and only 18 inches in diameter, powered by small, quiet, fuel-efficient, high-bypass turbofans, and painted in a mottled light blue and light gray ghost camouflage. Cruising at 600 knots, just below the speed of sound, they were nearly impossible to see or hear. They came in under the radar until they reached the coast. After that they were lost in the ground clutter. Nobody saw it coming.

At precisely 0753, Hawaii time, 1353 in the District of Columbia, sixty-seven years to the minute after the Pearl Harbor attack began, the first of six missiles to hit the Washington area exploded in a huge white burst of nuclear fire just 500 feet above the White House, which disappeared in a mist of powdered plaster and stone, concrete and steel. President Bush and President-Elect Clinton had been meeting with Condoleezza Rice and Mrs. Clinton's national security adviser, reviewing the latest National Security Estimate, when they instantaneously turned into a plasma of the atomic elements that had once been human beings. No trace remained.

Alarms immediately began going off all over Washington, and precisely one minute later the second missile exploded just as it struck the Capital dome, instantly turning thousands of tons of granite that had one moment before been the nation's center of government into thousands of tons of granite shrapnel that shredded several square miles of Washington like a leviathan Claymore mine. At precisely one minute intervals, four more 3 kiloton nuclear weapons exploded at an altitude of 500 feet AGL above the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters, the NSA headquarters, the FBI headquarters, all of which were fully staffed in the middle of the day. In five minutes, the government of the United States of America was decapitated, and a quarter million of the people who made the place run were dead, or dying, or had simply disappeared.

Also at 1353 Eastern time, a missile had blown off just above the New York Stock Exchange, in New York City, and thousands of years of collective financial knowledge and experience evaporated in the nuclear flame. In one minute intervals, others had hit the financial centers of Boston and Baltimore, and the Naval base at Norfolk, Virginia.

Simultaneously, within the same 10-minute window of hell, nuclear tipped cruise missiles devastated the largest intermodel shipping facility on the West coast at San Pedro harbor, exploded just above the Library Tower in central Los Angeles, and short circuited the computer technology ghetto of Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County, big time. One exploded ten feet away from the top of the Bank of America Building in San Francisco and set much of the east slope of the city ablaze. Another giant fireball flared among the phalanx of office towers along the Capitol Mall in Sacramento, instantly obliterating Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state government of California, the largest state economy in the US, the seventh largest economy in the world. Two ripped open the heart of Portland, Oregon, one shattered the financial district of Seattle, and the last one turned the Microsoft campus into a pillar of fire and smoke, wiping from the face of history, in a second, the IT giant that had revolutionized global communications.

It was 0803, Hawaii time. Ten minutes.

Three million Americans dead. And not a trace of the assault fleet remained on the surface of any ocean.

Vice-President Elect Gavin Newsom was in his bedroom at home in Pacific Heights, his window overlooking the Golden Gate and the Marin bluffs. He thought he heard an oddly loud crack of thunder and saw a flash reflected on the hills across the inlet, but it was a clear day and nothing else seemed out of place. He continued packing for the return trip to Washington, his second since the election, to continue his transition briefings and begin organizing his staff. His nomination as Hillary's running mate had come as a huge surprise, and he was elated.

Someone rapped on the door, loudly, twice, and without waiting for a reply the senior Secret Service officer on his detail opened it and stepped quickly in. "Come with me, now," he said. Gavin was startled. "I need to finish packing," he replied.

"No time, sir. Something has happened. Very big. I fear. No details yet. We have to get you out of here, NOW! RIGHT NOW! GO! GO! GO!" He grabbed Newsom's arm, swung him around, and pushed him out the door, where two other Secret Service agents flanked him down the stairs and out to a running black Suburban waiting in the garage. They pushed him into the back seat, jumped in, and the driver gunned the engine, out the drive, down the street, tires squealing. Nobody spoke until they were headed over the Bridge, northbound at seventy-five miles an hour, weaving through the traffic which wasn't yet the gridlock it would soon become.

"What the hell's going on?" he finally demanded.

"Okay. This is what I know," the officer said. "The US has apparently sustained multiple nuclear attacks in the last fifteen minutes, including Washington D.C. and San Francisco. Financial district. We're not sure how many, at least ten, maybe twenty. Lots of dead. Got the White House, the Capital, the Pentagon. Our job is to get you on an airplane at the nearest functioning airport, that'll be Novato, and get you to a safe place. Prestissimo."

"Where?" Newsom asked. Things were moving way too fast now.

"Don't know yet. We'll get orders."

The Air Force Learjet had been airborne for two minutes when a cell phone buzzed, and the Secret Service captain answered it and handed it off to the Vice President Elect. "It's Mr. Cheney, sir," he said.

"Gavin?" Dick Cheney asked. "Yes, sir," Newsom replied, subdued, for the events of the last hour had sobered up his elated mood considerably.

"Okay, Gavin. I don't know what you know, so I'll tell you what I can. There have been approximately 20 nuclear strikes on government and financial targets in the US, about an hour ago. No real damage estimate yet, except that it's awful. A hundred times 9/11, maybe a thousand times. I happened to be at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and have moved into Cheyenne Mountain to set up a temporary HQ, until we get things sorted out. As you know Cheyenne was vacated by NORAD a few years ago, so we have plenty of space. You will be flown here, nonstop."

"I know you haven't a lot of national and international experience." Cheney had thought of saying that Newsom had none, but Newsom would be too painfully aware of that. He didn't need reminding. "The President is missing and presumed dead. So is Mrs. Clinton. So you may become the next president, in about six weeks. I don't know. he Constitution says the Vice President succeeds a president who is dead or disabled, but it doesn't say what happens if the President Elect dies before being inaugurated. I suppose the Court will have to answer that, if we can cobble one together by then. In the meantime, I will assume you will be inaugurated. You'll have a steep learning curve, a real steep curve. All presidents do, under the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances."

The next day a hard winter storm roared down the West coast from Alaska, pelting rescue workers in bombed out city centers with hard, cold rain, that did not let up for a week. People alive but injured or trapped in the wreckage died of hypothermia before they were found. Two days later, a cold front out of Canada brought heavy snow to the Northeast. Millions were already without electricity, and in a week of subzero weather hundreds of thousands more died. More than four million, altogether. More than one of every one hundred Americans.

Al Qaeda had picked December 7 because it was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and because, just before Christmas, the Infidel holiday, it would destroy the Christmas shopping season so important to so many retailers, driving another nail into the national economy of the Great Satan. And it would destroy the festive spirit of the season for millions of Americans, perhaps for all. The perfect psyop. Psychological warfare. And the weather forecasters had predicted severe winter storms on both coasts during the week immediately after disaster.

Al Qaeda leaders had calculated, correctly, that by turning up the violence in Iraq during the weeks before the 2006 election it could achieve an anti-war Democratic Congress that would vote to end America's wars in the Middle East, and then by turning down the violence in Iraq after the election of an anti-war Democratic Congress, it could lull America into a false sense of safety and security in anticipation of the "peace in our time" that America's new ruling party had promised would follow from what Al Qaeda perceived, correctly, as America's retreat before the unstoppable determination of the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Jihad. America did not call it that, of course. The Americans thought they were just ending a bad and illegal war ginned up by George W. Bush to depose Saddam Hussein who had proven not to have WMDs after all, the ones the Americans had never found, the ones buried in Syria. Al Qaeda saw more clearly. It was a capitulation, a de facto surrender of the Middle East to the coming Islamic Caliphate that would someday rule the world. The martyrs of Islam had beaten the Great Satan to its knees. In time they would cut off its head.

By Christmas, the American economy had imploded. Inflation soared, unemployment soared, businesses closed, cities that had suffered direct hits became ghost towns. Tax revenues evaporated, leaving state governments without funds to pay unemployment benefits or teachers' salaries. With the New York Stock Exchange gone, stock trading ended, and values plummeted. Retirement assets and pension funds disappeared in a wink. Nobody knew what to expect. Real estate crashed, and major banks filed for bankruptcy. With the collapse of the American economy, the largest on earth, the most productive country on earth, with just 5% of the global population producing one third of the global economic output, the rest of the global economy fell into chaos. Oil shipments stopped, food shipments stopped, and in that winter millions of people in third world countries starved to death.

The America era was over.


"In the spring of 1941, Nazi Germany was poised to dominate the earth. France, the low countries, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, and much of Poland had been overrun by the Germans. All of Europe, save neutral Sweden and Switzerland, was in the hands of Hitler's friends and allies: dictators or monarchs who ruled fascist Italy, Vichy France, Franco's Spain, Portugal, the Balkan countries, Finland, and above all the Soviet Union."

"A single German division under General Erwin Rommel, sent to rescue beleaguered Italians in Libya, drove Britain's Middle Eastern armies flying and threatened the Suez lifeline; while in Iraq a coup d'etat by the pro-German Rashid Ali cut the land road to India. In Asia, Germany's ally, Japan, was coiled to strike, ready to take Southeast Asia and invade India. No need to involve the United States; by seizing the Indies, Japan could break the American embargo and obtain all the oil needed for the Axis Powers to pursue their war aims.

"Hitler should have sent the bulk of his armies to serve under Rommel, who would have done what Alexander did and Bonaparte failed to do: He would have taken the Middle East and led his armies to India. There he would have linked up with the Japanese. Europe, Asia, and Africa, would have belonged to the coalition of dictators and militarists."

"The Nazi-Soviet-Japanese alliance commanded armed forces and resources that utterly dwarfed the military resources that the holdouts, Britain (with its empire), and the United States, could field. The English-speaking countries would have been isolated in a hostile world and would have had no realistic option but to make their peace with the enemy, retaining some autonomy for a time, perhaps, but doomed ultimately to succumb. Nazi Germany, as leader of the coalition, would have ruled the world."

"Only Hitler's astonishing blunder in betraying and invading his Soviet ally kept it from happening." - David Frompkin, Professor of International Relations and History, Boston University, writing in What If: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (Putnam 1999) pp. 308, 309.


History is made, wars are won and lost, cultures and nations and civilizations come and go, rise and fall, as much by blunders as by victories.

The failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Liberal Democracies everywhere, by an Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism, and which will fight any war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve it, may prove to be the kind of blunder upon which the fate of America turns, and falls.

Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in northern California.


Please bear this in mind when you vote this November.

IrishArmenian
10-26-2006, 02:25
Well, we know who is a member of the American Republican party: most of the American Org members it seems (I don't mean to offend those of you who are not) not the least of whom is obviously Sasaki Kojiro.

IRONxMortlock
10-26-2006, 02:37
ROFL! Looks like Raymond's been reading too much Tom Clancy!

Could you say Mr Kraft is actually being a terrorist himself with this kind of writing? He is using fear to acheive a political objective afterall.

(No I don't actually believe he his, I think people should be able to write and say what they like.)

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 03:11
Well, that's well beyond my worst fears. I do agree with the concept that a withdrawal from Iraq will be viewed throughout the Middle East as fearful panic and retreat, unless we manage to define objective goals and meet them. Kim Jong Il launching short range missiles, within the US? Hmmm...

I cannot believe the Democrats are so shortsighted to play to their extreme leftist wing. Bill Clinton never did, and as they are like Sith lords, locked inside each others' minds, I have no reason to believe Hillary would be. Frankly, she's been one of the President's strongest Democratic supporters on Iraq.

Honestly, Sasaki, I'm not so certain it would be a bad day for America to accomplish a Democratic House this Fall.

lars573
10-26-2006, 03:16
The last time I read a paranoid fantasy that outlandish I was reading a 911 conspiracy site.

drone
10-26-2006, 03:35
And what happens if we vote Republican? :inquisitive: I would hate to see what the Bush administration, emboldened by a supposed mid-term "mandate of the people", would do in his last two years of office.

Major Robert Dump
10-26-2006, 03:48
Nice read, except I don't see why, if NK were going to attack, it would take a Democrat majority and a Democrat preisdent to facilitate this. In fact, I'd be more inclined to argue that an attack from NK would most likely come while the bulk of our troops were still deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.


It also overlooks the idea that not all members of a party march to the same drum.

The one thing that does make me nervous is the prospect of a "redeployment" taking the same shape as the last days of Vietnam, where our troops were literally running out of ammo in the field, and the subsequent million dead people was blood on our hands for leaving the south high and dry. Insert chicken vs egg arguments here

Samurai Waki
10-26-2006, 03:58
Oh yeah. The Great Caliphate won a mighty victory... it's just to bad that military commanders at NORAD instead of saying "oh we lost..." said "**** the panzy president" and Fire a Halo of Titan II missiles at every North Korean City, and Every City in every country associated with sponsoring terrorism.

CrossLOPER
10-26-2006, 04:08
That is the most unimaginative piece of vile fear-inspiring propaganda I have ever read. What is it trying to say? That voting Democrat will cause a doomsday for the US? Ridiculous. If anything, keeping the deceitful, lying, "do-nothing" congress that is occupying congress at present will destroy the US.

Also, yeah, Tom Clancy would arch an eyebrow.

EDIT: Where did you find this, Sasaki?

AntiochusIII
10-26-2006, 05:02
Eh, it's not like anyone like Hillary that much. She's been showing her true colours for a while now: a political opportunist of the greatest fashion. Bill was something far more solid and was probably far more effective as a President than his wife would likely be.

Not that she won't have the full support of a feminist vote, being woman and all. And with Rice having the legacy of all the failures of this Administration over her back, and her black complexion distracts from the closet racists...

I don't see how McCain should be as popular as he is, either. The guy's voting record isn't the most consistent thing around.

Divinus Arma
10-26-2006, 05:03
Last time I checked, Sasaki was anti-Republican. But I could be wrong. He is trying to make a point that Republicans are using fear to persuade during this election season. However, for those of us who recognize the threat that Al Qaeda and Islamofascism represents, this is no topic for sophistry. There is a very real danger alive and patiently waiting to strike.

The Democrats have selected politics over national security. They are willing to risk the destruction of the United States in order to regain power. Kim Jung Il expanded his nuclear ambitions under the Clinton Administration while the Bush administration has used diplomatic resolve to further isolate N.K. even from its Russian and Chinese allies. While the results of Bush diplomacy on the Korean penninsula has yet to show its consequence, we certainly know the consequence of Democrat foreign diplomatic strategy and I find them to be unpalatable.

Furthermore, let me remind you that it was under Clinton, not President George W. Bush, that Al Qaeda grew into the menace we found it on 9/11. We were attacked with the policies of decades past as an excuse for terrorism, and not for the policies of the fledgling Republican Administration of 2001.

I understand that the people of this nation would prefer to return to the "normalcy" of a pre-9/11 security perception. Unfortunately, that is not possible. The enemy will continue to strike us and the policies of the Democratic party will only serve to provide us with a false sense of security.

My biggest complaint is with our weak-willed instant gratification culture which seeks to shirk from courage and sacrifice. Even the old Democrats had enough sense to place security before politics. John F Kennedy once said " Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Where is that party today?

AntiochusIII
10-26-2006, 05:10
Hell yeah. Preach on, DA.Hell no.

I think the country has had enough of the propaganda, thank you.

Samurai Waki
10-26-2006, 05:10
Perhaps it is time to revolt, and Establish "The Second Republic".

Major Robert Dump
10-26-2006, 05:55
Some rednecks down south tried that once, we pwnt them

CrossLOPER
10-26-2006, 06:03
My biggest complaint is with our weak-willed instant gratification culture which seeks to shirk from courage and sacrifice. Even the old Democrats had enough sense to place security before politics. John F Kennedy once said " Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Where is that party today?

Certainly not in the bloated Republican party.

Samurai Waki
10-26-2006, 06:29
Yes it seems like the only party in the US that isn't weak willed and doesn't want instant gratification is the Nazi Party... which I don't think I'll be joining anytime soon...or ever.

Redleg
10-26-2006, 06:34
Well, we know who is a member of the American Republican party: most of the American Org members it seems (I don't mean to offend those of you who are not) not the least of whom is obviously Sasaki Kojiro.

Not me - I am not a member of either of the major political parties in the United States.....

Blodrast
10-26-2006, 07:01
As a piece of SF, from a purely artistic point of view, it's not too bad.
From the plausability standpoint, I have read second-graders essays (if you can call them that) that were more logical and coherent. Allow me to elaborate.

I think MRD (bless him), as usual, almost nailed it: what on earth does retreating from Iraq have to do with nukes ? Or with NK and/or Iran ?

The nukes were built in NK and Iran. If anything, the US was being sidetracked with the pointless war in Iraq, and distracted from the REAL threats, which were NK and Iran. The very fact that US was focusing on Iraq so much allowed NK and Iran to concoct this devilish plot undisturbed.

Moreover, by concentrating so many troops in Iraq - which is completely unrelated to Al-Qaeda, the US has had fewer resources to channel in the places where it could *really* fight Al-Qaeda: Afghanistan (which was, and is, indeed, a just and justified war), and Pakistan, which harbors and encourages terrorism. Instead, resources and energy were directed towards Iraq, which didn't bother Al-Qaeda in the least. While keeping the great Satan busy in Iraq, the true martyrs of Islam were allowed to prepare in peace for the beginning of Jihad.

Do I need to get even more pedantic, to nitpick and rip it to shreds a bit more?
What does the incompetence, or negligence, of some "junior analyst in the NSA" have to do with Democrats or Republicans ?

How about the unbelievable statement that the US would leave a few hundred of its citizens to be slaughtered without the slimmest intent of retaliation ?
Ooooh, let me guess, it must be those Democrats that will eat your babies, yes, they would leave all of you to perish in the name of world peace.

I'm sure I can come up with more, and also with an alternative scenario in which after x years of war, the number of American deaths has risen to large six figures, the draft has been instituted in order to compensate for the lack of willingness to fight a senseless war, waves of Americans are moving to Canada such that their children will not be killed in vain 10,000 miles away from home, etc, etc, etc...

edit: for typos

Xiahou
10-26-2006, 07:42
Eh, it's not like anyone like Hillary that much. She's been showing her true colours for a while now: a political opportunist of the greatest fashion. Bill was something far more solid and was probably far more effective as a President than his wife would likely be.Hmm, you dont have the same recollection of Bill that I do...

ezrider
10-26-2006, 09:30
Great story, I could actually hear the Republican FEAR amp going all the way up to 11.:thrasher:

Husar
10-26-2006, 14:02
Always remember to apply Murphy's law guys. :2thumbsup:

IrishArmenian
10-26-2006, 15:01
Not me - I am not a member of either of the major political parties in the United States.....
Hence the most in my original post. I would be in the same boat as you if I was in the US. I think neutrality allows one to be much more level-headed in one's political decisions.

BDC
10-26-2006, 15:45
what on earth does retreating from Iraq have to do with nukes ? Or with NK and/or Iran ?

Or with anything? All it's done is show America can't even deal with occupying a tiny, poor, disorganised little country properly.

Redleg
10-26-2006, 16:03
Hence the most in my original post. I would be in the same boat as you if I was in the US. I think neutrality allows one to be much more level-headed in one's political decisions.

Ah but I am not neutral by any means - I have strong conservative views when it regards the federal government. While the Republican party has not honored the conservative principles that I hold - I often find the Democratic message has no substance other then they are not republican.

Now on the local level - community and state elections I often vote for democrats because they often speak on things at the local level that I hold dear. THe community taking care of the community. Most Republicans at the local level do not address issues other then crime - which is only part of the community concern.

yesdachi
10-26-2006, 16:40
Fun read. I liked DA’s comments and wish for a strong leader to break from our 2 crap parties and lead the US into greatness.
I have 5 cans left in my 6 pack and a half bag of chips, I think I will need more supplies to before my wait is over.

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 16:55
Uh Blodrast, you said
Moreover, by concentrating so many troops in Iraq - which is completely unrelated to Al-Qaeda,

You you mind explaining then why one of the largest factions of insurrectionists in Iraq right now is Al Queda in Iraq? How is it we managed to kill Zarqawi and several other high level Al Queda operatives in Iraq? If Bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq, why do his lieutenants keep showing up there?

Major Robert Dump
10-26-2006, 17:14
I would imagine he means prior to the war, Don. Of course there AQ there now, but a few AQ hiding out in Iraq prior to the war doesn't exactly make Ira an AQ stronghold. AQ goes where America goes, its like a slutty band groupie instead it wants to kill us not screw us. If we invaded Iran we'd be fighting AQ in Iran, or AQ in Syria, or AQ in Jordan etc.... which then brings us to the whole "we're fighting them there instead of here at least" argument, an argument that, while somewhat true, I absolutely hate

Sorry Mr Iraqi civilian, we weren't so much interested in liberating you guys as we just needed a place to stage a war so we could draw AQ out of the caves, and you guys lost the coin flip. Better luck next time

Ronin
10-26-2006, 17:16
Uh Blodrast, you said

You you mind explaining then why one of the largest factions of insurrectionists in Iraq right now is Al Queda in Iraq? How is it we managed to kill Zarqawi and several other high level Al Queda operatives in Iraq? If Bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq, why do his lieutenants keep showing up there?

because when the US army went in blew the crap out of the place they made it into the perfect place for al queda?

let´s see....

-muslim country atacked by hated west superpower - check
-muslim population of the country living in fear and therefore easy to convert and influence - check
-breakdown of basic, normal day-to-day living conditions - check
-civil war (in everything but name) breaking out amongst the diferent racial elements in the area - check

iraq, pos-invasion is an islamic terrorist´s wet dream if I ever saw one....and you wonder why they´re showing up there?

Goofball
10-26-2006, 17:16
Pretty good story, though very reminiscent of Clancy's Executive Orders.

The thing that rang least true for me (of many) was Hil being elected President. I just don't see that ever happening. For whatever reasons, she seems to be the focal point of so much right wing hate that I think her being the Dem candidate would be about the only thing that would really galvanize the currently lagging GOP support and probably win the Republican candidate a landslide victory in the next election.

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 17:46
Pretty good story, though very reminiscent of Clancy's Executive Orders.

The thing that rang least true for me (of many) was Hil being elected President. I just don't see that ever happening. For whatever reasons, she seems to be the focal point of so much right wing hate that I think her being the Dem candidate would be about the only thing that would really galvanize the currently lagging GOP support and probably win the Republican candidate a landslide victory in the next election.

It's not just right-wing hate. She doesn't play very well among moderate or liberal Republicans or even conservative Democrats. The one thing she does have is a warchest of election funds that make her unbeatable. She got elected senator because the most popular senator from the Democratic side of the aisle (even Republicans liked the guy, even if they disagreed with him), Daniel Patrick Moynihan annointed her as his hand picked successor. I have no idea what dirt the Clintons had on him, but you couldn't find two more disparate political identities then DPM and Hillary in 1999/2000 (granted, she's come to the center significantly since then).

Hillary raises ire from all sides because as intelligent and well thought out as her stances on a position may be (and while I don't agree with them, there's no debating that there is some logic behind them) she never fails to throw in "and I know better than anyone" as a reason. It's that arrogance, that patronizing tone she always has, that bothers her detractors so much, and it's not limited to the Republican party. Plenty of Democrats can't stand her either. Even people who agree with her cite that "I know more than anyone else" attitude as a drawback.

Lemur
10-26-2006, 17:48
The thing that rang least true for me (of many) was Hil being elected President. I just don't see that ever happening.
You're quite right -- Hillary Clinton will never be President. Ain't gonna happen. The U.S. will likely have a female in the oval office one day, but it's not going to be her. Those who see her as a real contender tend to be left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists, for some reason. Nice to see those two wings united in fantasy.

Samurai Waki
10-26-2006, 17:54
Yeah, more than likely the next Democratic GOP is going to be Barack Obama.

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 17:55
Ronin, Major, I don't disagree that the US invasion certainly made it more fertile. I wouldn't argue that prior to 2003 that there was a significant presence of AQ in Iraq. Truly. I've even seen it argued that creating an engagement zone they wouldn't be able to resist, as opposed to sneaking over here, was the real reason for the Iraq war in the first place.

My point is that they are there now. Withdrawing in front of them now, with no objectives accomplished, just 'getting out before it gets any worse' would be a disastrous play. The one part of that scenario that I DO agree with is that any sort of withdrawal, prior to establishing a secure government and society in Iraq, will be interpreted as cowardice and failure by not only Al Queda, but the Islamic world in general. I don't care what anybody says about peace with honor, "US runs in fear from Al Queda, nothing to stop Bin Laden now" will be the headline on Al Jazeera and on every Arabic language newspaper around the globe. It will embolden the extremists and drive their recruiting numbers through the roof.

As for the rest of that hogwash, whoever wrote it clearly has no idea where the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on nuclear attack submarines, sonar buoys, AWACS aircraft and, for that matter, the Coast Guard goes. The US is overly protective of it's ocean bound approaches, to the point of paranoia. As for the lack of a response in the face of hundreds of military advisers being summarily executed, sorry, Rush Limbaugh could have done a better job remaining unbiased. It was the worst sort of jingoism (against Democrats) that I've seen in a long time.

I seriously suspect it was a self-inflicted attack by a Democrat, to make Republicans look like rabid, slathering mongoloids.

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 17:57
Yeah, more than likely the next Democratic GOP is going to be Barack Obama.

A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever in global politics, terrorism, defense or even large scale budgets. Yeah, but he's got charisma, and he prays (so Democrats can take fundamentalists away from Republicans). Yeah, this is the problem with the Democratic party. They're looking for a rock-star, not a fit person for the job (and the Democrats DO have some).

Lemur
10-26-2006, 17:57
I suppose it could be Obama, assuming all of this speculation that it will be him doesn't kill his candidacy early. And assuming he doesn't come out of the closet as a nut job, you know, pulling a Ross Perot. I'll admit he has an aura of dignity and gravitas (and Lord knows we could use some dignity), but I'm unclear on his policies and politics.

Two years out is, to my mind, a dangerously long distance to be predicting who will represent either party.

Samurai Waki
10-26-2006, 18:02
He would be a better pick than Zell Miller :laugh4:

Of course, having a president that wanted to get into fisticuffs with other world leaders would be entertaining.

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 18:10
I can think of 3 Democratic leaders that while I may not always agree with them, I can see from their public reasoning that they at least understand what they'd be up for (something think Barrack Obama doesn't have a clue on)....

-Joe Biden (yes, I know, he gives Republicans fits, but at the end of the day, what popular Democrat doesn't).

-Evan Byah (his biggest opponent is anonymity)

-Bill Richardson (bright guy, capable guy, but credibility/ethics issues from his Clinton days could back to haunt him).

Any of these three would make a much better pick than Obama or Hillary.

Kralizec
10-26-2006, 18:47
What about Wesley Clark?

Redleg
10-26-2006, 18:52
What about Wesley Clark?

I have serious issues with his ethics - from his military days. Some might see him has a viable candidate from his more recent exposure, and he does have alot of charsima that might just carry him. He is by far an intelligent individual, with experience in foreign areas - but limited political or governmental experience outside of the military.

DemonArchangel
10-26-2006, 19:03
What I fear is that the Democrats would fight to hard amongst themselves to get a solid candidate up in 2008. What I fear more is that a Democratic candidate born of political compromise, lacking in actual leadership capability will win the Oval Office. It would be almost as bad as a Corporate Lackey Republican in the same vein as GDub taking office again in 2008.

Sasaki Kojiro
10-26-2006, 19:11
A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever in global politics, terrorism, defense

Just curious, who does have that?

Lemur
10-26-2006, 19:11
Don't forget, if the Dems take control of the house and senate, a Republican president may be the optimal choice. We really, really don't want one-party control. Trust the lemur on this one. Single-party control of all three branches of government = badness.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-26-2006, 19:38
Yeah, more than likely the next Democratic GOP is going to be Barack Obama.

Slow down the typing!Let your fingers catch up with your thoughts. GOP = Republican....you know that.

I disagree by the way. Obama will put his hat in the ring, but espite a lot of charm and appeal he will lack the money/developed party connections to pull off the nomination. His active role and Midwest background will help him land the VEEP role (I'd guess it's down to him or Warner for this). If you're an Obama fan, don't worry, he's young enough to be perfectly positioned and groomed in 2016 (or possibly 2012).

Early strong contenders for the Dems = Clinton (massive war chest, many of husband's electoral team available; high negatives with some groups), Gore (Southerner, party connections, good fundraiser, many dems nostalgic since they view him as having been cheated; still a bit wooden in style), & Kerry (has worked to solidify image with party activists, experienced campaigner; possible only Dem more wooden than Gore).

Blodrast
10-26-2006, 21:53
@Don Corleone: sorry for the late reply.

Yes, as MRD and Ronin pointed out, I had meant no AQ in Iraq prior to the invasion, the reason why they are there now is because the US is there now. Like DA said, Iraq is now a roach motel, especially for a particular kind of roaches (ones that hate the US).

Also, with respect to the fact that pulling back would encourage AQ, I dunno. The very reason they are there IS because the US are there. If the US wasn't there, what would they do there, that they couldn't do in Iran, Syria or Pakistan ? Now they're there because they can directly fight the Great Satan, etc. Retreating would leave them without a target, and without an objective, in Iraq, because, again, there is absolutely nothing for them to gain in Iraq, other than "killing the infidels". Yeah, of course they would remain there (maybe), but then so what ? They can already stay in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and maybe other places, so what do you care whether they're in Iraq or not more than you do about Iran/Syria/Pakistan?

Goofball
10-26-2006, 21:59
A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever in global politics, terrorism, defenseJust curious, who does have that?

OBL?

:laugh4:

And from what I hear from conservatives in here, his views are quite closely aligned with those of the Dems (or vice versa), so maybe it's not such a long shot...

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 22:08
@Don Corleone: sorry for the late reply.

Yes, as MRD and Ronin pointed out, I had meant no AQ in Iraq prior to the invasion, the reason why they are there now is because the US is there now. Like DA said, Iraq is now a roach motel, especially for a particular kind of roaches (ones that hate the US).

Also, with respect to the fact that pulling back would encourage AQ, I dunno. The very reason they are there IS because the US are there. If the US wasn't there, what would they do there, that they couldn't do in Iran, Syria or Pakistan ? Now they're there because they can directly fight the Great Satan, etc. Retreating would leave them without a target, and without an objective, in Iraq, because, again, there is absolutely nothing for them to gain in Iraq, other than "killing the infidels". Yeah, of course they would remain there (maybe), but then so what ? They can already stay in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and maybe other places, so what do you care whether they're in Iraq or not more than you do about Iran/Syria/Pakistan?

First, Syria and Iran are hostile to the United States and actively encourage terrorism against us and Israel. They're not going to let Hezbollah or Al Queda sit around getting fat dumb and stupid. They'll send them out on the road to go perform some more terrorism against us or Israel or Western Europe.

Second, what would Al Queda do if we pulled out, you ask. Sit around Iraq, Iran, Syria and Pakistan? Well, if their goal was to gain a foothold in Iraq, yes, they probably would. But as you correctly point out, their goal is to strike us as hard as they can, every chance they can. If we pull out of Iraq, where do you think they're going to go? Here! Or, to Mexico (easier entry) and then come across in a caravan of illegals.

I don't think you understand what's on the line here. The only thing keeping Al Queda from increasingly worse acts of terrorism is two things: 1) they're occupied in Iraq as much as we are so they can't mount other terror campaigns and 2) they themselves don't have the greatest confidence as to what they can pull off. I think how fast we knocked in their playhouse in Afghanistan surprised them. I think that we had the political will to do it, even in light of 9/11, shocked the hell out of them. I think they expected some more hand wringing, maybe a few more cruise missiles. A full out invasion and flattening of their camps wasn't in their worst nightmares. We had the upper hand, then two things went wrong:

-Musharraf, to ease domestic pressures at home, gave the green light to his intelligence agency and military to surreptitiously allow Al Queda to escape and set up within Pakistan.

-We allowed ourselves to take our eyes off the ball, and rather then holding Musharaff's feet to the fire and going into Pakistan after them, allowed them sit around and recoup their losses.

Well, when we pull out of Iraq period, any time, limitation #1 is gone. If we pull out right now, with things headed South, limitation #2 will be gone as well. My prediction: If we leave Iraq prior to a clear cessation of hostilities over there, we will have at least one, possibly several 9/11 type attacks or larger within the USA, in less than a year. Al Queda's ranks will swell to the point that they'll be turning people away as disenfrancished youth from Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Arab world will all want to join in the hunt.

Spetulhu
10-26-2006, 22:10
That is the most unimaginative piece of vile fear-inspiring propaganda I have ever read.

Threats of violence and death, check. Scaring people with war to advance a political agenda, check. Nuclear scaremongering, check. Are you sure this isn't terrorism? :inquisitive:

Don Corleone
10-26-2006, 22:18
As I said before, that's over the top for all but the most rapidly extreme Republicans. I'm talking G. Gordon Liddy type, Rush wouldn't even publish something that far out. I think it's a Democratic trick. Put it out there just to say "You see! You see how crazy they are and how they'll say anything to get reelected!"

Blodrast
10-26-2006, 22:31
First, Syria and Iran are hostile to the United States and actively encourage terrorism against us and Israel. They're not going to let Hezbollah or Al Queda sit around getting fat dumb and stupid. They'll send them out on the road to go perform some more terrorism against us or Israel or Western Europe.

I agree with them being hostile to the US. So how does staying in Iraq change that?
Again, it will make no difference to their attitude towards the US whether Iraq is still occupied or not.



Second, what would Al Queda do if we pulled out, you ask. Sit around Iraq, Iran, Syria and Pakistan? Well, if their goal was to gain a foothold in Iraq, yes, they probably would. But as you correctly point out, their goal is to strike us as hard as they can, every chance they can. If we pull out of Iraq, where do you think they're going to go? Here! Or, to Mexico (easier entry) and then come across in a caravan of illegals.

Eh... I disagree with this, for several reasons.
First, 9/11 happened before the US invaded Iraq. So the fact that they hit you at home had nothing to do with Iraq.
Now, you're saying they haven't done that since, because they've been busy in Iraq.
I disagree with that - I believe they haven't done that since because (one of the main reasons) after 9/11 the US has significantly increased its security measures at various levels.

Another reason is that, as you say, and I agree, they want to hit the US as hard as they can. But, my friend, "as hard as they can" will *always* translate into "US territory". It will always be "harder" if they hit home, rather than kill a few soldiers. I'm not trying to disparage the deaths of the soldiers, I hope you understand what I'm saying: killing a few civilians on US territory will always have more impact than killing a few soldiers in a military operation. So if they really want to hit as hard as they can (as you yourself said), they'll hit US territory, so,staying in Iraq or not is not going to change that.

Another reason I disagree with this is because you make it sound like the US has to actively occupy some other country, just to keep AQ busy there, and not on US territory.
Even if that were correct (which I don't believe it is), it's very... selfish. Are you trying to say like Gelatinous Cube said, that you think you should be occupying other countries (with all the obvious consequences, plunging those countries into civil war, causing loss of civilian lives, etc), for as long as that keeps the terrorists away from US soil ?




I don't think you understand what's on the line here. The only thing keeping Al Queda from increasingly worse acts of terrorism is two things: 1) they're occupied in Iraq as much as we are so they can't mount other terror campaigns and 2) they themselves don't have the greatest confidence as to what they can pull off. I think how fast we knocked in their playhouse in Afghanistan surprised them. I think that we had the political will to do it, even in light of 9/11, shocked the hell out of them. I think they expected some more hand wringing, maybe a few more cruise missiles. A full out invasion and flattening of their


I disagree with 1. Why do you think they would be so hell-bent on Iraq ??
Why not the actual US territory ? It seems to be the best strategy: while your enemy is focused on some front, hit him on another front. Why would they need to make any efforts to maintain the chaos in Iraq, when that hurts the US very little, when they could make efforts to hit the US in the US?
I'll agree that the latter is way more difficult to achieve, but, again, that's the whole point: the US being there is offering them an easy (if not as "juicy" as US territory) target. If you took off, that easy target would be gone, and yes, they would put more effort into getting to US territory. But that hasn't happened so far, so you must be doing something right.

Also, what makes you think that their goals or objectives will change, regardless of how long you stay in Iraq ?
Let's say you stabilize the country, and drive AQ away from Iraq. Will you destroy them, eradicate them completely ? Let's be serious, no. They will just retreat to other "friendly" countries. So you leave Iraq because it's peaceful now, and what do you think they'll do ? Start all over again, be it in Iraq, or towards the US, or both.
My point is that the situation - AQ fighting against the US - will be the same no matter when you retreat from Iraq. So from the perspective of the threat of AQ, what's the point in staying there, since the threat will always remain the same ? I see no benefit, but I do see several drawbacks.

Even if you "win" the war in Iraq, it won't make a difference to what AQ's goals or objectives are, unless, like I said, you manage to completely obliterate them. But that's more than unrealistic, when they can always escape across the border, and also get fresh recruits from all those terrorist-supporting countries. As long as there's craziness in all those countries, new recruits will always be available. Do you really believe it's feasible to stay in Iraq until those countries run out of religious fanatics ?

And I agree that Afghanistan was a good move, and should have been pursued further, with more effort, rather than switch focus on to Iraq.

AntiochusIII
10-27-2006, 02:03
I disagree by the way. Obama will put his hat in the ring, but espite a lot of charm and appeal he will lack the money/developed party connections to pull off the nomination. His active role and Midwest background will help him land the VEEP role (I'd guess it's down to him or Warner for this). If you're an Obama fan, don't worry, he's young enough to be perfectly positioned and groomed in 2016 (or possibly 2012).Times Magazine ran a feature on Obama just a little while ago (like, this week "Why Barack Obama could be the next President"); they seem to like him well enough, but they criticize him for not really taking any positions on the hard issues.

While I think 2 years is more than enough to build up publicity and name-recognition, along with establishing a clear position on most issues in US politics, Obama doesn't seem to be in any way ready for Presidency challenge in 2008 -- not with Hillary and her massive war chest and connections dominating the scene. In fact, if I were him, I'd wait anyway. Everyone knows the Iraqi mess is going to be the next President's job: would you take that kind of responsibility on a humongous job with the risk of a political death at the first sign of failure?

He seems to want to run, though. The guy has charisma and he prays, as has been said, so he might be trying to play the "compassionate" card Bush played in 2000.

Moreover, I never understood why Left-wing extremists find Hillary so likable. Her almost Bushistas hawkish mongering had me quite miffed. Remember the Port buyouts issue?

By the way, what's this I hear about the New York City Mayor wanting to throw his hat into the ring as a GOP candidate?

Major Robert Dump
10-27-2006, 03:00
I have serious issues with his ethics - from his military days. Some might see him has a viable candidate from his more recent exposure, and he does have alot of charsima that might just carry him. He is by far an intelligent individual, with experience in foreign areas - but limited political or governmental experience outside of the military.


haha. "hold Pristina airport at all costs......"

"no, sir, I'm not starting world war three."

I'd like to hear his explanation of that incident, and I might give him a shot. Was he bluffing? Was he a fool? Did he see his countries actions in the screwed up war as so important that to him it was an issue of being a patriot? Obeying the commander n chief? Did he just want to stick it to the Soviets?

In light of what we know about the exaggerations on the numbers the Clinton administration gave us, that was a terrible, terrible order.

Redleg
10-27-2006, 04:39
haha. "hold Pristina airport at all costs......"

"no, sir, I'm not starting world war three."

I'd like to hear his explanation of that incident, and I might give him a shot. Was he bluffing? Was he a fool? Did he see his countries actions in the screwed up war as so important that to him it was an issue of being a patriot? Obeying the commander n chief? Did he just want to stick it to the Soviets?

In light of what we know about the exaggerations on the numbers the Clinton administration gave us, that was a terrible, terrible order.

Interesting enough that particlur instance wasn't what made me question his ethics.

Major Robert Dump
10-27-2006, 14:47
Hmmmm, then what was it, because thats what made me question his ethics, and has all along. But I must admit, the last presidential primary I saw him as the better choice of the Democrats (oklahoma was the only state clark carried btw) but I didn't do a lot of research into him beforehand, simply because I absolutey hated all the other choices

Seems like a loose cannon, but judging from our executive branch for the last few years it appars he'd fit right in

Devastatin Dave
10-27-2006, 14:50
Hmmmm, then what was it, because thats what made me question his ethics, and has all along. But I must admit, the last presidential primary I saw him as the better choice of the Democrats (oklahoma was the only state clark carried btw) but I didn't do a lot of research into him beforehand, simply because I absolutey hated all the other choices

Seems like a loose cannon, but judging from our executive branch for the last few years it appars he'd fit right in
I remember working in a certain facility while he was ordering the cluster bombing of civilians. Man, luckily it was a democrat in office during the time or people and the media would have been pissed.:thumbsdown:

Redleg
10-27-2006, 19:04
Hmmmm, then what was it, because thats what made me question his ethics, and has all along. But I must admit, the last presidential primary I saw him as the better choice of the Democrats (oklahoma was the only state clark carried btw) but I didn't do a lot of research into him beforehand, simply because I absolutey hated all the other choices

Seems like a loose cannon, but judging from our executive branch for the last few years it appars he'd fit right in

That instance was the tip of the iceberg. There are other instances in his career that makes me question his ethics, most from second hand information from officers that were not to favaorable of him from the beginning. Then their was the officers I served under that considered Clark one of their mentors, they were very questionable in the ethics department - often throwing others under the bus when their actions were questioned.

Now I wouldn't go attempting the "Swiftboat" tactic to discredit General Clark, but from the information I have - he would have to explain several of his actions to remove my questioning of his ethics. Because most of my information is second hand - I would give him he benefit of explaining some of the more questionable ethics that he has demonstrated in the past.

Sasaki Kojiro
10-28-2006, 05:37
https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5856/n220475303629353md4.jpg

Bartix
10-31-2006, 13:53
The article probably quite correct.
Terrorists know this.
That is why Iraq insurgents now at high activity.
As Cheney and others say, they want to make US vote democrat, so aiding the terrorist cause:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20061020-125437-2462r.htm

Lemur
10-31-2006, 14:48
Bartix, the article you linked does not support your claim that terrorists are hoping for a Democratic win. Just a sample:


That period may be interpreted as the run up to U.S. elections, but now is also Ramadan, Islam's holy month -- a time when violence has increased in Iraq in each of the last three years.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., told UPI he doubts there is a correlation between the U.S. election and the increase in violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.

"I hope they are right, but I see no basis for it in the previous three-and-a-half years of experience in Iraq," O'Hanlon said. "We did not see a spike before the November 2004 (presidential) election. We have not seen big spikes before other major political milestones. Sure, you can see slight increases in violence due to such things, but the big increases are generally due to changed American and Iraqi army tactics. Increased engagements with the enemy lead to greater casualties on all sides.

"Political events do not in my experience appear to be big drivers. I'd love to be proven wrong this time, because that would imply a reduced level of violence after Nov. 7, but I'd be very surprised if that happened on a major scale," O'Hanlon said.

Also, doesn't Cheney haul out his "vote for us or the terrorists win" argument every election?

Papewaio
11-01-2006, 02:52
Which party did the President of America belong to in WWII?

Since US won then, surely it would be best to select from the same stable based on winning form. :laugh4:

Motep
11-01-2006, 03:12
I dont care what party they are...so long as they can run this country better than the other idiots who will sign up. If Hilary Clinton runs, shes got my vote.