The Only Issue that Matters this Election

[BUDDY]

From: Rhino Times Greensboro

"There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or 10 years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case – if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations."

Very interesting article that I heard about through a friend who heard about it on the Rush Limbaugh show. Yes, yes, I know Rush is a pompus ***, but this article was written way vefore it was mentioned on his show. what are your thoughts concerning this? Do you believe that the outcome of the war of terror will really be determined by which political party controls congress? Or do you think that it doesn't make any difference either way?

 

[doppelganger]

I'm sorry, but what does the occupation of Iraq have to do with the "war on terror," again?

Oh, and when you answer, if you wouldn't mind sketching out who the enemy is in the "war on terror," and how we'll know when we're winning this "war", that'd be helpful, too.

This "war on terror" rhetoric is for spineless cowards who don't know what it is to stand behind American values and the fearmongers who wish to profit from that cowardice.

 

[BUDDY]

I'm sorry, but what does the occupation of Iraq have to do with the "war on terror," again?

Oh, and when you answer, if you wouldn't mind sketching out who the enemy is in the "war on terror," and how we'll know when we're winning this "war", that'd be helpful, too.

This "war on terror" rhetoric is for spineless cowards who don't know what it is to stand behind American values and the fearmongers who wish to profit from that cowardice.

Okay, in Iraq there are terrorists trying to keep the current Iraqi government from working. We are over there trying to keep them from destroying this new government. The war on terror is global, and not localized to the nation of Iraq only. In Iraq, you will know that we have accomplished our mission when Iraq is in a position to defend themselves against the insurgency without help from other nations. Globally, we will know that we have won, when the violence of the terrorist philospphy is at an end. I really don't know how else to explain that too you, unless you are looking for something else.

I believe that American values includes stopping terrorists from torturing and murdering the innocent in Iraq and anywhere else they may be. If that makes me a spineless coward in your opinion, then so be it. I could really care less.

But, you never really answered the OP. Does party offiliation make any difference ont he outcome? It appears I have struck a nerve with you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

when the violence of the terrorist philospphy is at an end

hmmm...

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I'm sorry, but what does the occupation of Iraq have to do with the "war on terror," again?...

Wasn't that the latest justification for the war after the massive stockpiles of WMDs didn't turn up?

My take on the article is that whatever the role of the beginning of the war and the fight against terror, there is a chance that a timetable withdrawal that does not take into account the Iraqi's willingness and capability to handle their own security will be seen by our enemies as a concession.

Even some of the staunchest critics of the decision to invade concede that premature withdrawal of US forces would be a disaster for everyone but the insurgents.

I tend to disagree with one of the articles main points "If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.". I would like to think that if the Democrats take the House, the Senate, or both they can demand some definite answers instead of giving Bush Carte Blanche to 'stay the course'.

If there's one thing we can say with some degree of certainty, it's that today's elections can be described as a referendum on the War in Iraq. If the Democrats win big, I think it's fair to say that Americans no longer believe that Bush & the GOP are handling it properly.

 

[BUDDY]

hmmm...

Yeah, I never said that it was ever going to come to a complete end, but I do believe inaction will only make it grow. I think you have to try and do something about it.

 

[evearael]

Even some of the staunchest critics of the decision to invade concede that premature withdrawal of US forces would be a disaster for everyone but the insurgents.

*Nods* I would be disgusted if the US pulled out prematurely. Regardless of anyones feelings about how we got into this war, we are there now and we must stabilize and rebuild so that the Iraqis can be secure and prosper.

I do feel the GWOT is terribly vague, and will never really end, but I do agree that a war on terror is more appropriate than labelling a particular group... only a handful of whom are an actually threat.

 

[doppelganger]

I was responding to the article you quoted, which already presumes an answer to your question. The article mindlessly parrots the same stupid rhetoric suggesting that people who dissent from the Iraq occupation are terrorist sympathizers. Only a truly cowed fool would fall for this nonsense. Unfortunately, there's a lot of those around.

As far as Iraq is concerned you've got it completely wrong. The current Iraqi "government" is at the whims of the warring Islamic factions who make up the militias and whose allegiance is first and foremost with the religious leadership rather than the Iraqi "government," which is seen as a puppet for for the occupying U.S. It is a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis in which U.S. troops are handy targets for both sides. It's not a war on "terror" or an "insurgency." It's an unpoplular occupation attempting to reign in the chaos of an exploding civil war between religious factions who do not share a common cultural or national identity.