Will this kill US support for the War on Terror?

[Ted Striker]

Even Dinodoc isn't this big of an *******, he's just trolling


This case is 100% wrong and it does have a chance of busting up NATO and the effort in Afghanistan

In 2006 there is absolutley no excuse for killing someone for their beliefs, regardless of government or idealology. That's just a universal right that should be respected by all nations and peoples, enough said.

Yay for the War on Terror!

[SlowwHand]

Japan had it made. No military to fund. Reparations to put them on their feet at the same time.
USA and allies have always helped the vanquished Why, I don't know.

[Gatekeeper]

Well, I'd say it really paid off with Europe and Japan. I'm *damn* proud of how they've turned out following World War II. Disagreements here and there aside, both are solid U.S. friends and, even better, securely set in their democratic ways.

You ask me, we oughta be doing the same in the Middle East. Alas, easier said than done.

Gatekeeper

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Japan had it made. No military to fund. Reparations to put them on their feet at the same time.
USA and allies have always helped the vanquished Why, I don't know.

It's generally a good policy if you don't want to fight the same people over and over?

How you guys are ****ing up/have ****ed up here is another story.

[DaShi]

Because we need less enemies.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
You ask me, we oughta be doing the same in the Middle East. Alas, easier said than done.

Gatekeeper

50,000 US troops and another 10 to 20,000 from NATO would have said 'no Sharia', but your administration didn't seem to have much patience. New wars to move onto, and all that.

[Gatekeeper]

*shrug* You're speaking to the choir, NYE, when it comes to what I think about Bush and Iraq. Hell, if we'd been really serious about changing the Middle East, we would've made stateside sacrifices like our grandparents did during World War II. But, no, the message we got was to spend, spend and spend some more to keep the economy propped up.

Gatekeeper

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


50,000 US troops and another 10 to 20,000 from NATO would have said 'no Sharia', but your administration didn't seem to have much patience. New wars to move onto, and all that.

That's the real issue. Afghanistan might have turned out very differently if the administration hadn't viewed it as a needless distraction from it's all-consuming quest to get Saddam.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


50,000 US troops and another 10 to 20,000 from NATO would have said 'no Sharia', but your administration didn't seem to have much patience. New wars to move onto, and all that.

Let's hope it's not Iran


They (Iran and the US) actually agreed to have direct talks today which is a first

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


That's the real issue. Afghanistan might have turned out very differently if the administration hadn't viewed it as a needless distraction from it's all-consuming quest to get Saddam.

Yep

Afghanistan totally had the opportunity to turn into a Japan or Gemany experience, and that's what most Americans expected, and because of this fetish for Saddam the whole place is a complete letdown

[Dr Strangelove]

Bush just announced that he's going to take a big steamy dump on his successor by keeping American troops in Iraq until after he leaves office. Gosh, what if John McCain wins in 2008? Seems a shame to make the man a POW do a second time. Maybe what Bush meant is that he'll keep the troops there if Hillary wins.

[Tattila the Hun]

Hum, I wonder, if a christian converts to Islam, and then back, does this apply?

[Dinner]

Once a muslim if you change religions then their prophet has ordered that you be killed.

But then again he also was a pedophile who slept with a 9 year old so I'm not to keen on what he said.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Bush just announced that he's going to take a big steamy dump on his successor by keeping American troops in Iraq until after he leaves office. Gosh, what if John McCain wins in 2008? Seems a shame to make the man a POW do a second time. Maybe what Bush meant is that he'll keep the troops there if Hillary wins.

Yep, he's letting someone else fix the problem

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Hum, I wonder, if a christian converts to Islam, and then back, does this apply?

Its not so clear on this, they refer to everyone who converts to Islam as reverts, so you may be an apostate or an infidel depending on the whim of the Imam. It makes no practical difference though.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


No. Japan after WWII, yes.

If not, what have we accomplished in Afghanistan?

We've blown up most of Al-Qaeda's stuff on the northern side of the border. everything on the southern side of the border is still there though.