I think the difference comes down to this. When punched, Americans punch back, harder. Europeans take another punch and ask what they did to deserve the first one.
1) This is inconsistent with the Bush argument regarding the coalition in Iraq, which includes mainly european nations, and facts on the ground in any case. The
only issue that separated some of the large european nations from the US on use of force was the invasion of Iraq. They were all for Afghanistan and are open for other military engagements.
For the last time on this issue... though Bush supporters seem incapable of understanding this... Iraq did not hit us at all. Neither were they in an imminent threat position (even according to those who believed it posed a general threat).
As it turns out, the arguments made by European nations against an invasion of Iraq at the time Bush wanted to, turned out to all be corrrect. Our rationale turned out to be fallacious at best, fabricated at worst.
Picking on Europeans... didn't Bush say that's not the way to deal with allies?
2) I am for use of military force and believe hitting back hard, or harder, is fine. But hit who, and how is the question. That is the only point I ever raised. Let's try reasoning once more. If we get hit again, or it is revealed there is a new threat, will we be in a worse position to address it than if we had not invaded? And if we had not invaded what is the chance we'd have to be facing them?
As to the Bush election heralding a new Dark Age - get a grip.
I didn't say this. I happen to believe we are entering a new Dark Age but it began years ago and has nothing to do with Bush.
So I guess you should try and keep track of who you are addressing.
names of vanished peoples in history texts.
Snicker snicker snicker. So what exactly is your plan to deal with China and India?
Face it, eventually at some point in history, the US and "American" will no longer exist except in history books.
Given the 11 for 11 success of state referendums against gay marriage
You missed the point. There is a section for federal legislation of gay marriage, a section against federal legislation, and in the latter camp those who are for and against. What plan did you vote for when voting Republican? You can't say because there was none.
In fact, I understand that the majority of americans (and that includes democrats) are against gay marriage. That does not mean they are for having the feds bully states on the issue.
I love how you are now trying to dodge my point that the republicans offered
all plans and so voted for none with regards to voting for candidates. I had even mentioned the Fallwell quote where he said his group was voting for Bush but not for Cheney in this election, because of the different policies the different men represent.
Embryonic stem cell research is almost a memetic delusion among Democrats... In any case there is not a restriction on private funding of this research, nor will there be.
Still dodging, but thank you for proving my argument regarding the nature of republicans and where the majority of americans are.
Reps are having it both ways by saying they are against it, but not really because it will still be privately funded. Well what the hell does that mean? So if something is discovered it will never be publicly funded? Take a moral position and stick with it.
And of course you then had Reps like Schwarzenneger who were clearly
for public funding of embryonic stem cell research. Listen to Arnold, no don't, yes do, no don't. Flip. Flop. And oh by the way that was accepted in California and as I understand it is supported by a majority in the US.
If you want to debate the utility of embryonic stem cell research we can start another thread. I am not for it any more than adult stem cell research. I just have no reaon to be against it.
Republican economics is relatively unconcerned with deficits
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha... Didn't I tell you I was
not a democrat? I am a relative fiscal conservative, so you can't pull that kind of wool over my eyes.
I mean do I actually have to list the names of Republicans who have blasted Bush's taxation and deficit spending policies because it doesn't fit into traditional Republican policies?
Or did we vote in a new reality?
The Republican Party is not monolithic on social issues.
I understand this. The point was that Republicans abandoned any particular policy during the election in order to champion everything under the tent to get out the vote and make the Republicans stronger, despite the jarring inconsistencies this required.
This might be appealing to partisan politicos, but not to people (like me) that prefer reasoned approaches to problems and voting on the reps of specific approaches.
I think its safe to say that even Kerry and Edwards were commited to free markets and a foreign policy of strength. That was the kind of glittering generality I was referring to. What does that mean for republicans? Is it the McCain type policy, or the Wolfowitz type policy?
You did not see this kind of partisanship within the democratic side.
This is the chief divide between Democrat views on the terror war and Republican.
Yes your partisan hackery is noted... still trying to hit those talking points?
Your us and them (aka dems vs reps) excludes quite a number of people including independents (which is what I am) and republicans that have said the exact opposite of the what you just said. Do I really need to name some names?
First of all this
is a war on terror, right? This does include many more than just Islamic terrorist groups, though there is absolutely no question that is one of the biggest terrorist threats the US is facing.
It is not just get OBL and that's the end. However getting OBL is a much greater achievement than removing Hussein. Going into Iraq was not "hitting back harder" as you put it as they had nothing to do with the threat we were facing from terrorism.
Neither did Iraq have anything to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Hussein was an enemy of the fundamentalists as he was a commited secularist. Perhaps you should get to know actual Iraqis and the history of Iraq before trying to make that connection.
Since Hussein's removal Islamic Fundamentalism has grown and is now more of a threat to us than it was before. Even a fully democratic Iraq will not mean that fundamentalism and support for its aims goes away. Has democracy ended Xian fundamentalist efforts? In the end a free Iraq may even remain or grow as a threat to Israel.
Your ability to mistate my position continuously, as well as exhibit clear misunderstandings of facts on the ground, just goes to show what I was talking about.
Thank you true believer and partisan hack.
PS--- Putin was firmly behind Bush for an aggressive stance against terrorism. He was also firmly against Iraq. So was he a european or not? Whoops, there goes the stereotypes.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
