11-11-2006, 04:48 AM
GonzoStyle Wrote:I personally don't believe there is a better way to fight this other than going hell bent for leather and arming Iraq's entire perimeter. American's don't have the stomach they had in WWII. We are not as tough and gritty as our grandparents, man. Democrats can tap into that softness. That's why they listen to opinion polls. They know americans want a government that does nothing so they can bitch about them not doing anythign rather than a government actually getting something done.Hoon Wrote:My rational is voting Dem's back is bad because they have no firm stance on anything. Their stance is complaining about Bush. That might be the fad.. I mean all the new rock bands with a certain haircut are doing it on Fuse but when it comes to confronting real problems, it's not a solution at all.But cant you agree that while maybe the republican administration had the good intentions of fighting terror, that they werent doing a good job of it. So isnt it only right to try and let the other side give it a go? I mean there is a reason we have these elections every 2 years.
Democrats don't want to succeed in Iraq because they don't want Bush or the Republicans getting credit for it. They want it to be a miserable failure for one reason only... so they can regain power. Please tell me you're not so naive as to not understand that. If not, please tell me the Dmeocrats rock solid position on Iraq - if indeed Iraq was the major election issue.
And there is nothing Al-Queda wants more than another spineless democratic government like they had in the 1990's
If you think the Clinton administration did anything but invite 911 and embolden Al-Queda throughout the 90's, then you're crazy. The Bush administration is fighting the enemy head on and would win. But it takes time, man. Time weak minded americans won't afford because they're used to things being wrapped up in 30 minutes, including commercial breaks.