_BiB_

I should stop by here more often.

mmmmmmmmmmm...tequila wings. Thailog, which game do you forsee as our wings game?

You people are pathetic. Truly. Borderline sick. You'd line up on your knees with your ears laid back for Kerry and his four month tour never questioning anything, but want to lambast Rudy. Friggen pukes. I hope you all get what you want. You !@#$ing deserve it. I'm sorry Baby, I should have taken my avatar down long before. You don't need to be a part of this stevestojan, and they don't deserve you.

You are naive. Think about it a while and come back. If you consider this an insult. OK. Beat me up...

Hey, Ed takes a stand, and does not back away. Maybe more than the "righties" believe oftentimes. Here, it's drool, from either side. You have to decide who's right.

No one is going to win the "war on terror". Not Bush, not Kerry. It's around to stay. For a long, long time. Sadly, we have to get used to it. It will be a long, drawn out and constant "active defense" for years to come. All it takes is one.

Funny, I've posted an nauseum on this very subject (Iraq, terror, middle east, etc-) and have never once had anyone want to engage on the subject. Where were you guys then? Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem. The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs. If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold. As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach. In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't. I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think. Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages.

Wiser?

I think it has a lot to do with the regurgitation of soundbites or the "Yeah, buts..." Doesn't appear as though there is much in the way of independant thought and analyisis. If you put something in black and white in front of their noses that supports what you are saying, they won't read it. Things like that. I've posted a lot of what amounts to analysis explaining my positions on things, such as a proper counter terrorism campaign. I've used supporting references. Not ONCE have I received a response as to what I wrote from "the left". They continue to pound away with the mantra rather than address the situation and the information. I find it frightening. We've talked on the side and you understand that I have more than a casual or cursory knowledge of some of these areas. If my ideas are wrong, they are wrong-but give me something besides "Kerry says so" or "Viet Nam" as a reason. I've actually posted the National Military Strategy for the US. What I was waiting for, and never saw-is that what we are already doing is what Kerry is proposing we do. Very little difference. How the hell is that supposed to save the world in radical fashion? If this is the case-the documents are there, you can get them with a google search-what are we gaining electing him president based on defense issues? Kerry's voting record (what there is of it) is anti-defense. If people would actually look at THE FACTS. And at least attempt to understand them, we wouldn't have as many of these petty arguments.

I'm supposedly some right wing Bush backer from hell. I'm not even a Republican. I've never once gone partisan in anything I've posted. I approach issues. I've even tried to be informative, on occassion. AD screams from the rooftops his independant status. He doesn't want either one of them. KRC is running on his own ticket. DC Tom is just running. Tom's about as apolitical as they come. VA Bills is a Republican-but I don't recall ever seeing a blind platform soundbite rant. The list goes on. And we are the lemmings? Maybe there's something just not right about the democratic candidate...

"I think I knew that BIB was a veteran." Then why did you attack me? Do I need to post my resume to have an opinion? as to the answers to your questions: I was 19 at the end of the Viet Nam "Conflict". Yes, I have worn the uniform. As an Army cavalry scout, a tank commander and as a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare specialist. I've worn it on every continent of the planet, except for Antarctica. I continue to work in defense as a civilian contractor. I feel, my opinion, that I have served honorably. Yes, I have considered the rights and wrongs and morality of the VN war. Where is this any issue with my question? Yes, I have "put myself in Kerry's shoes" Why do you think I started the thread? I don't appreciate you calling me a lemming because I have questions. The lemmings are the ones who don't ask any.

Disregard all the attacks. Read the original post, and the ones following that actually address it. to simplify: FACT. A tour of Viet Nam was 12-13 months. FACT. JK completed one third of his assigned tour. FACT. None of the injuries resulting in a purple heart were severe enough to miss any work. FACT. Kerry was the only guy out of four in a twelve foot boat to get wounded on his FIRST MISSION. He received a scratch on his arm. Not disputed by anyone. how he got the scratch is in dispoute. Fact is, it was a scratch. I've been hurt worse mowing the lawn. At least it needed stitches. Probable FACT (have not been able to fully research yet) JK was likely the only Naval Officer in VN to pull the three PH thing, leaving in an upright position. FACT. Kerry returned from VN and went into high profile anti-war mode, while making a bid for a House seat from a very democratic Mass. What timing. Would he have been in a position to run for Congress had he finished his tour? FACT (Deny it all you want) Kerry made this honorable service (he actually uses the phrase) a big issue at the DNC. "Reporting for Duty" He continues to do so. I was listening to excerpts from one of his speeches on NPR (that bastion of right wing reporting) and the subject was the economy. Before his statement was over he managed to work in "still carrying the shrapnel in his leg from VN." Well, stevestojan...you and about a hundred thousand other people. I'm asking if anyone can see a possible agenda here. And if not, why? There's obviously something wrong here. This is about as non-typical a tour of duty that can be imagined. Your responses come back as "But Bush" or "If he were a Republican". I want you, to tell me...why none of what I'm pointing out matters. We're talking about John Kerry. Not GW Bush, not Max Cleland, not John McCain. Kerry.

I at one time thought better of you. Shame. I know you're smarter than this, but you won't engage the issue. Can't, huh? You're probably better off just letting it go. You know exactly what I'm saying, and you haven"t addressed it once. Mostly, because you can't.

Who knows? I think it would be foolish, and non-productive, but certain people who know what they are doing will be there to stir up the mob mentality.

There's a lot of concern in the democratic camp, as well as within some of the protest organizations as to the many ways this can backfire.

I've been told a lot of times I couldn't go somewhere, for various reasons. I'd just go another time. Why is there a big deal involved unless one plans on being part of the protesting mass? And as has been pointed out-there are venues for that. I find it highly unlikely that if a crowd of 2000 people forms, all 2000 are going to jail. There will be a central rabble rouser(s) hauled away.

Does this have anything to do with "spontaneous" gatherings? I was given the impression that many of the protesters have applied for, and have been granted permits for their activities. So, if you can't walk the dog in a particular spot of your choosing one time out of a century, your rights have been usurped? I don't see it. I don't think anyone is prohibiting gathering and demonstration as long as it's being done responsibly.

Well, I'm sorry that you find me that shallow.

Well, you're wrong. About me at least. I take this stuff with more than a grain of salt. I'm not nor do I need to examine every detail of a service record to add to 3 (PH) and four months. I also understand the system, and what is expected from a leader, especially in combat. I can also put 2 and 2 together. Has anyone wondered why Kerry was the only one getting wounded in a Boston whaler with four people in it?

Where is that not happening? As I understand it, several thousand plan on assembling? (Which, BTW-makes an attractive soft target...)

How the !@#$ did you get that out of what I wrote right above you?

You are a newcomer here and have missed a lot of conversation about this stuff. 1. Things are being observes, reconned and probed every day. Slow news days, it can fill some pages. 2. Sometimes you actually want THEM to know that YOU know. 3. What rights have you lost because of the current administration?

Not to me, cow. I'm talking specifically about Kerry and his motivations. I haven't mentioned other names other than to say I don't take issue. I've very clearly laid out my thoughts and if you want to call them, arguments. you are-once again-skirting the issue and pulling an equivalent of "But Bush..." This is not the issue to me. I would have probably paid no attention to this issue, personally, until the "Reporting for Duty" moment. Go back and read my original post. Put Bush, Cheney, Cleland and everyone else out of your head and concentrate strictly on what is being said. I have issue with this. I'm not having a Kerry bad-Bush good moment. We are talking about a possible Commander in Chief.

I agree that this should get moved to PPP. And, as you have strong feelings about it-you should come over and discuss them. You started in with a pretty vehement response about having your rights taken away. You obviously have some issues here. We'd be interested in hearing your story.

We just thought that since the country can't seem to do it, we'd try to bring people together. In honor of this there will now be 35 threads started about Mike Williams foot at PPP.