Why the pessimism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it does. Fighting generic terrorist 'insurgents' after occupation is not a war. Russia is not involved in a war in Chechnya right now. Israel is not involved in a war against Hamas right now. The British were never involved in a war agains the IRA. And in those cases, you do have a declared side. Here you have a nameless bunch of insurgents. No different from those who still fought the American Civil War years after 1865.

Actually, every time I lookin any paper, I read about the WAR in Chechnya. Everytime Israelis speak, the speak about their WAR against Hamas....every time this admin.speaks, they speak about a WAR on terror, of which now Iraq is the most important battleground. Will you, holding the stance you do right now, right here state you do not believe there to be such a thing as a war on terror?

In the history books, the Iraq war will only have been said to take place until Saddam was deposed. The insurgency will be the last gasp of the regime, or something else entirely.

Hardly-while the hisotry books are not yet writen, most liekly,like with the Philippinnes, the subsequent violence will be seen as an integral part. As for "mop-up" if ONLY the mop up were as bloodless as the war, no?

[chequita guevara]

tp

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm just repeating what I have heard. Do you disagree that Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress?

While Kerry is a liberal, I highly doubt he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, let alone all of Congress. What is going on is a perception problem on the part of the right (which isn't surprising since they tear out their eyes in order to keep from seeing anything that might disagee with their ideology). One vote, for example, being touted as proof of his liberal voting record was made on the basis of a recommendation from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and President G.H.W. Bush. Unless Cheney and Shrub's father are closet liberals, one could hardly describe that as a liberal vote, and yet the mouth-frothing right is doing just that.

[chequita guevara]

dp

[chequita guevara]

qp

[debeest]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Kerry is ultra-liberal, however.

Maybe people like Kucinich and Barbara Lee and Charles Rangel don't count as Congressmen in Ned's mind, but even in the Senate, a bastion of conservatism, you have Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Byron Dorgan, Richard Durbin, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden.....

There's barely a real liberal in the bunch, but surely no one really believes that John Kerry is the most liberal of these, as Ned claimed. An "ultra liberal" would find no place in the two major parties, like Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Dellums are about as liberal as elected politicians get.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, every time I lookin any paper, I read about the WAR in Chechnya. Everytime Israelis speak, the speak about their WAR against Hamas....every time this admin.speaks, they speak about a WAR on terror, of which now Iraq is the most important battleground. Will you, holding the stance you do right now, right here state you do not believe there to be such a thing as a war on terror?

I love these 'wars'. Chechnya is not a war, no matter how Putin would like to spin it that way. And I have doubts that it ever was (even during actual battles between Russian and Chechnian rebels, I'm not sure they reached 1000 battle deaths.. and since then it's just been random guerrila fighting and terrorism). Israel is not fighting a war against Hamas, even though they'd like to call it such. Hardly any other country recognizes Chechnya or actions against Hamas to be part of a 'war'.

How many times do I have to state that I don't believe that the War on Terror is actually a war, just like the War on Drugs is not a war. Do you even read my posts?

most liekly,like with the Philippinnes, the subsequent violence will be seen as an integral part

But with the Philippines revolt, it isn't seen as an integral part of the Spanish-American War, but something totally distinct. Aguinaldo led something very different than the Spanish at Manilla did according to the history books.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Not to nitpick, but I'm quite sure he is in favor of it in private. He just can't afford the political price.

Oncle, wishful thinking, I suppose. Kerry is a Catholic and you know the position of Catholics on the issue.

Now, if he were to openly declare himself to be an atheist, then I would agree with you.