Target,AMERICA

[bigshot99]

Location: New York city,New York.
Target, World Trade center.
Date: February,26.1993.
Attack Type: car bombing,Attempted release of Sodium Cyanide
Fatalities- 6
Injuries- 1,042
Prepetrator: al-qaeda terrorists led by  Ramzi yousef
Motive  American aid to to israel,and involvement in the middle east



Location: Saudi arabia,,kohbar towers
Target: US Military
Date: June 25,1996
attack Type: car bombing
Fatalities- 20
Injuries:  372
   Next Target
Location: aden,yemen
Target: USS Cole.
Date: oct,12,2000.
Attack Type: Suicide bombing by small craft
Fatalities: 17
Injuries; 37
Prepetrators, al-qaeda
Bill clintons responce
Limited reprisal...
Now America backed Bill clinton on this..
Next Target;
Location: New York city, New York
Target: World Trade center,,one,and two. The Pentagon, somerset county, Pennsylvana where the passengers and members of the flight crew attempted to retake control of their aircraft from the hijackers
Target: thats the fourth target was suspected WASHINGTON DC:
NOW the DEMOCRATIC party has launched attacks President Bush for the war that they have given approval for.
now the psychological works has the american people growing war weary,
now what will the democratic paryt have us do,,reunify iraq through political means alone
 THAT WILL NOT WORK,,KEEP KICKING ASS AMERICA.



EDITED:  Fixed spelling error in title - Goofynina/Admin.
Merged with thread "Target America" - Goofynina/Admin.

[Sluff]

I wonder what all these people who are anti-war, would have done after 911.

The media keeps reporting all the bad, everyday. Few show the good. I have many Brothers over there, I get first hand experiences all the time. The media reports what they make money reporting and play on emotions.

[Hawkeye]

I wonder what all these people who are anti-war, would have done after 911.
The media keeps reporting all the bad, everyday. Few show the good. I have many Brothers over there, I get first hand experiences all the time. The media reports what they make money reporting and play on emotions.

There is one difference here and that's post 911 has nothing to do with Iraq.  I am all for hunting down Osama, but in my opinion Iraq was just Bush Jr's way of finishing off what daddy couldn't.  That and Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama.  If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.  The whole war on terror was started by 911 but has lost it's focus and went in a direction it shouldn't have at this point.  We should have finished what we started, then gone looking for other things.  There was no immediate threat from Iraq, plus there were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush has admitted to that and the fact that the intelligence that he got about it was "shakey".  These are just my opinions so I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me.  I just think that people wouldn't be "war weary" if we were fighting a good war for a good reason.

[glitter]

Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama.  If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.

We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.


as for Iraq-   http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0

this thread is very informative

[Hawkeye]

Don't get me wrong I am by no means anti-war.  I support our troops 150% for the excellent job that they do putting their life's on the line for our freedom.  I just think we lost focus and took a turn we should have taken a little further down the road.  Damn mapquest screwed up the directions again, lol.

[kitkatz]

Support the troops that are sent to the war, but do not support the war.   

[BigSky]

There is one difference here and that's post 911 has nothing to do with Iraq.  I am all for hunting down Osama, but in my opinion Iraq was just Bush Jr's way of finishing off what daddy couldn't.  That and Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama.  If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.  The whole war on terror was started by 911 but has lost it's focus and went in a direction it shouldn't have at this point.  We should have finished what we started, then gone looking for other things.  There was no immediate threat from Iraq, plus there were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush has admitted to that and the fact that the intelligence that he got about it was "shakey".  These are just my opinions so I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me.  I just think that people wouldn't be "war weary" if we were fighting a good war for a good reason.

We took down Saddam because of 9/11.

9/11 was the final straw.  No more sitting back and let terrorists, those that fund and support terrorists continue on with business as usual.

Iraq has a long history of terrorist attacks and planned and failed attacks on the US.

It was very simple.  We could no longer let Saddam continue on doing business as usual  until he got a "lucky" hit on the US.

Yes we have not found Osama.

However Clinton said he was going to bring him to Justice long ago,(well he did refuse to take him from Sudan once)  however I think old Bill is probably down in Florida with OJ and they are playing golf and trying to figure out if they should look for Ron and Nichols killer first or if they should hunt down Osama first.
 

[Bill Peckham]

http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=225&cid=1165

Above Michael Hirsh lays out the rational alternate world view in a handy video format. Or you can read it here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html :

"No Bush official embodied this agenda of demolishing liberal internationalism better than John Bolton. Here, a man whose writings and speeches had embraced a policy of delegitimizing the UN and international law was made steward of those very institutions. (And that was in the second term.)

The presence of this other agenda is why so much of what the Bush team did seemed to have so little to do with 9/11 and the direct challenge of al-Qaeda. It was the antipathy of Bush and his senior officials to liberal internationalism that drove the president to address a challenge that mandated the most judicious use of the international system—al-Qaeda-style terrorism—by spitting in the face of that system. And to commit the essentially irrational act of invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, at a moment when the chief culprits of 9/11 were still at large (and after Bush had won a 15–0 Security Council vote giving him complete inspection access to Iraq: a great triumph, had he stopped there)."

[BigSky]

http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=225&cid=1165

Above Michael Hirsh lays out the rational alternate world view in a handy video format. Or you can read it here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html :

"No Bush official embodied this agenda of demolishing liberal internationalism better than John Bolton. Here, a man whose writings and speeches had embraced a policy of delegitimizing the UN and international law was made steward of those very institutions. (And that was in the second term.)

The presence of this other agenda is why so much of what the Bush team did seemed to have so little to do with 9/11 and the direct challenge of al-Qaeda. It was the antipathy of Bush and his senior officials to liberal internationalism that drove the president to address a challenge that mandated the most judicious use of the international system—al-Qaeda-style terrorism—by spitting in the face of that system. And to commit the essentially irrational act of invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, at a moment when the chief culprits of 9/11 were still at large (and after Bush had won a 15–0 Security Council vote giving him complete inspection access to Iraq: a great triumph, had he stopped there)."

At least now we know why you fail to comprehend the issues.

Hmm seems to me the UN deemed itself illegitimate when it failed to abide by its own charter concerning Iraq, and al-qaeda, not to mention a host of other things it failed to do across the world.

[George Jung]

Yea lets spend another 400+ BILLION dollars and 3000+ lives and just keep "fighting" another 4YEARS!!  I admire anyone who joins the armed forces but I wish they weren't burdened with this situation.  Of course they believe in what they are being told to do.  That belief is all they have so far away from home.  I am all for the DEMOCRATS shaking things up, they can't possibly make things any worse off then our ass of a president and his administration has.

[meadowlandsnj]

Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama.  If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.

We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.


as for Iraq-   http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0

this thread is very informative

I think all media is reporting we have not caught Osama yet.     Anyway, I think if we really really wanted to smoke him out we could.  We're going about this the wrong way.  There's no incentive for the Afghanistanis to find him.  They play dirty over there, it's their way of life.  They don't play by our rules.  We don't understand their way of life where they have tribes and familial affiliations that go back generations.  We have to start to think like they do. 

Donna

[glitter]

 

I  think all media is reporting we have not caught Osama yet.

Obviously I said- We ARE still looking for Osama in Afganistan-I never said he was found-you must have mis-read my post.The United States is still very much in Afganistan-the media just chooses to report very little about it because it does not further the liberal agenda.

[Bill Peckham]

Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama.  If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.

We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.


as for Iraq-   http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0

this thread is very informative

We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.

[bigshot99]

Yea lets spend another 400+ BILLION dollars and 3000+ lives and just keep "fighting" another 4YEARS!!  I admire anyone who joins the armed forces but I wish they weren't burdened with this situation.  Of course they believe in what they are being told to do.  That belief is all they have so far away from home.  I am all for the DEMOCRATS shaking things up, they can't possibly make things any worse off then our ass of a president and his administration

A truth that no one, democrat, republican, or independent can argue with is that the war in Iraq has gone on longer than it should. The media, in specific, the liberal branch masterfully twists the facts to serve their purpose by telling exclusively the negative aspects of the war in Iraq. Yes, they do print factual casualty reports about the number of civilians that are killed every day. However, do they print the reasons that those casualties are incurred? Do they tell you that the casualties are the result of a Sunni insurgent planted explosive? The Liberal media likes to publish reports stating how many soldiers die every day in an effort to reduce troop morale. What they don't tell you is WHY troops die every day. They don't tell you that the eight soldiers or marines that were killed in a helicopter crash died while they were transporting medical personnel and supplies to help civilians. The thing that liberal media likes to ignore is the full time job that America's troops have now that the corrupt regime has been ousted from power. It is imperative that we maintain peace and order in Iraq lest Sunni insurgent forces sympathetic to Saddam Hussein and his ideals should wrest power from the fledgeling provisional government, a task which would be no more difficult than smothering an infant in its crib. Should insurgent forces seize control of the political arena in Iraq once again, all America has to look forward to is more war than has already been made necessary and all Iraqi citizens can look forward to is another Saddam-style dictatorial regime controlling every aspect of their day to day lives. The TRUTH of the matter is that our troops in Iraq, the brave men and women who sacrifice time being at home with their families and friends and endanger their lives on a day to day basis are doing so to ensure that DEMOCRACY, the very thing which this country, this AMERICAN nation is founded upon and which makes the AMERICAN nation the greatest country on the face of the planet is brought to a people less fortunate than ourselves. They are bringing a critical institution to a people not fortunate enough to have been born and live on American soil. The saddest fact is that the very democracy and freedom they fight for is the same democracy and freedom that allows liberal minded radicals to criticize, chastise and demonize them for trying to do the good thing, the right thing.








EDITED- Fixed quote tag, Kitkatz,moderator

[George Jung]

Would you suggest genocide?  If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing?  We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home?  I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done."  We want to change a divided country with a long history.  What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks."  I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.

[bigshot99]

Would you suggest genocide?  If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing?  We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home?  I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done."  We want to change a divided country with a long history.  What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks."  I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.

  My god man,your talking GENOCIDE?? wheres the logic in that type of thinking. no i would not suggest genocide. Are troops are fighting in the battle field and here at home you want the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to shake things up.THEY JUST EMBOLDEN THE ENEMY. Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war.  3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.But i would say support the troops with what ever amount of money it takes to reunify Iraq so the bastards don't have nukes. And yes it will take more time.But thats in no way suggesting GENOCIDE,,Hell thats all they know over there is fighting and killing. I believe We have tryed political resolve, and diplomacy,

[bigshot99]

Would you suggest genocide?  If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing?  We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home?  I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done."  We want to change a divided country with a long history.  What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks."  I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.

 

My god man,your talking GENOCIDE?? wheres the logic in that type of thinking. no i would not suggest genocide. Are troops are fighting in the battle field and here at home you want the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to shake things up.THEY JUST EMBOLDEN THE ENEMY. Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war.  3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.But i would say support the troops with what ever amount of money it takes to reunify Iraq so the bastards don't have nukes. And yes it will take more time.But thats in no way suggesting GENOCIDE,,Hell thats all they know over there is fighting and killing.We have tryed political resolve,
and diplomacy

But we cannot act like there will be no impact on America.






EDITED: Fixed Quote Tag Error - Sluff, Administrator

[BigSky]

We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.

Actually that would fall to Bill Clinton and the democratic party.

History shows us this pretty well.

From failings to fight al-qaeda in the 90's by letting them hit US target after US target to his failures on information about 9/11 terrorists planning and training for 5 years under his Administration to that of REFUSING to take bin laden from Sudan when they offered him up to us.

[bigshot99]

You are correct sir,funny how thats over looked.Bill Clinton just kept his eyes closed and allowed the build up.Now the Democratic Party excepts no responsibility.

[George Jung]

all they know over there is fighting and killing. I believe We have tried political resolve, and diplomacy,

If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do?  Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us?  Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it.  It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches.  You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way.  The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation

Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war.

How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels?  That is your preception not theirs.  They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are.  Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs.

author=bigshot99 link=topic=3105.msg44398#msg44398 date=1174559254]

   3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.

Thats totally a matter of opinion.  Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.

I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil.  I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing.  Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country?  I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around.  We seem to be relatively alone in our approach.  If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.

Do any of us as loving, caring, generally peacefull people have any idea how these terrorists think and feel?  Personally, I believe the two sides are from different worlds that will always co-exist so we should be more concerned with protecting our home instead of looking to kill an entire population.  It's going to be a neverending battle.




Edited: Fixed quote tag errors - Sluff, Administrator

[BigSky]

If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do?  Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us?  Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it.  It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches.  You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way.  The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation

We are trying to change Iraq for the better because we could no longer let Saddam continue on his many aspects of terrorism.  The very fact is Saddam committed acts of terror on the US and had tried many other such acts against us.  What do you propose we do about that?  Let him continue until he got "lucky" and pulled off his own 9/11 style of attack?

Terrorism most likely will continue, however one doesn't sit back and do nothing about it nor do they commit genocide on an entire race of people as you seem to suggest.

How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels?  That is your preception not theirs.  They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are.  Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs.

Well I cannot speak for Bigshot99 on this but I am willing to bet he knows this by a very simple statement that bin laden made on this subject after Clinton pulled troops in Somalia.

Bin Laden is quoted after Somalia  by ABC news as saying “The youth…realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

Thats totally a matter of opinion.  Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.

Over 6000 US troops died on D-Day alone.  While the death of a soldier is not good, 3000 deaths in 4 years is not bad considering all things.

I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil.  I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing.  Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country?  I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around.  We seem to be relatively alone in our approach.  If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.

The amount spend in this war on terror is minor compared to that the US gives out in aid every year to foreign nations or that which private citizens donate to foreign countries every year. 

[George Jung]

author=BigSky link=topic=3105.msg44567#msg44567 date=1174668710]

author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do? Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us? Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it. It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches. You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way. The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation

We are trying to change Iraq for the better because we could no longer let Saddam continue on his many aspects of terrorism. The very fact is Saddam committed acts of terror on the US and had tried many other such acts against us. What do you propose we do about that? Let him continue until he got "lucky" and pulled off his own 9/11 style of attack?
Terrorism most likely will continue, however one doesn't sit back and do nothing about it nor do they commit genocide on an entire race of people as you seem to suggest.

No. That is not what I am suggesting.  I don't really know what to suggest.  Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil.  Protect what is ours.  With your way of this war it will never end.  After Iraq someone else will come along.  Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world.  It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do.  These acts of violence are not going to help.

When I travel into a foreign country as an American I am trying to be as inconspicuous as possible.  Nothing flashy, mind my own business as to not disturb the culture.  Culture is a key word here. When I am at home I can be myself and defend what I believe and flash all i want(I don't flash but I could if I wanted to).  Point is I don't go bullying my ways to the world but I will defend at all costs to protect myself.  Protecting ones self does not institute reforming a country and its culture.  We make changes and take precautions.

author=BigSky link=topic=3105.msg44567#msg44567 date=1174668710]

author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels? That is your preception not theirs. They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are. Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs.

Well I cannot speak for Bigshot99 on this but I am willing to bet he knows this by a very simple statement that bin laden made on this subject after Clinton pulled troops in Somalia.

Bin Laden is quoted after Somalia by ABC news as saying “The youth…realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

I'm not talking about what Bin Laden has said.  I'm talking about what those people think and feel deep inside.

author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
Thats totally a matter of opinion. Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.
Over 6000 US troops died on D-Day alone. While the death of a soldier is not good, 3000 deaths in 4 years is not bad considering all thing.

I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day.  This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different.  There really are no comparisons.

author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil. I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing. Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country? I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around. We seem to be relatively alone in our approach. If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.
The amount spend in this war on terror is minor compared to that the US gives out in aid every year to foreign nations or that which private citizens donate to foreign countries every year.

Well when you put it that way I guessi t's totally justifyable.  What???  Guess I missed something.  I thought we had a national debt.






EDITED: Quote tag errors- kitkatz, Moderator

[Bill Peckham]

We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.

Actually that would fall to Bill Clinton and the democratic party.

History shows us this pretty well.

From failings to fight al-qaeda in the 90's by letting them hit US target after US target to his failures on information about 9/11 terrorists planning and training for 5 years under his Administration to that of REFUSING to take bin laden from Sudan when they offered him up to us.

Looks like the American public does not agree with your analysis of the situation.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/23/poll_dems_beating_the_gop_on_national_security
"A new poll finds that Democrats are more trusted than Republicans to handle the generic issue of "national security" — suggesting that the Iraq War has wiped out the Republican Party's edge in this area. The  new Rasmussen poll asked respondents: "Which political party do you trust more to handle national security?" Forty-six percent of respondents chose the Democrats, while only 44% picked the Republicans. This isn't a single outlier, either: Rasmussen has repeatedly put the Democrats with an advantage on the issue since the Fall elections."

I would guess the Bush presidency has destroyed the Republican party. At one time Republicans valued intellectual honesty but this president only wants sycophants in his administration. That worked so long as there was no congressional oversight. I would bet that the President now wishes that he'd had at least one person around that would have pointed out the baseless premises of current policy.

[Bill Peckham]

More information about the tectonic shift in American politics over the last six years from Pew Research. Here's an LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pew23mar23,1,7389496.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true
Here is a PDF of the whole report: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

(H/t http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/)
"It's a devastating indictment of the Bush-Rove strategy for conservatism and the Republican party. They may have created the most loyally Democratic generation since the New Deal with the under 25s. But check the other findings out. Party identification is now 50 percent Dem and 35 percent GOP. The country is now divided in two over the question of whether military strength is the key to ensuring peace; in 2002 62 percent were hawks and 34 percent were doves. Religious intensity is falling; acceptance of gay people is rising. The younger generation is the most secular of any. Support for the military has never been stronger - people don't blame the troops for the war. The country is divided down the middle on torture, but still in favor of preemptive war in some circumstances. Sorry, Dinesh, ( http://www.dineshdsouza.com ) but women's equality and freedom are values now overwhelmingly popular among all groups, including Republicans, and strongest among the young. Since Bush has been president, there has been a sharp decline in the number of Americans favoring "old fashioned values about family and marriage." In the last ten years, opposition to gay marriage has dropped ten points and support has risen ten points. There has also been a striking twelve point increase in support for affirmative action over the past decade - all of it among whites."

Assuming we keep a two party system what do you suppose will form the basis for what replaces the GOP? Or do you think there will be a fractuer into multiple parties? Do we even need political parties?

It turns out that Karl Rove has gone a long way toward securing a permanent majority in American politics ... for liberals and Democrats. The collapse of a coherent, freedom-loving, reality-based conservatism is surely part of the reason.

[BigSky]

No. That is not what I am suggesting.  I don't really know what to suggest.  Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil.  Protect what is ours.  With your way of this war it will never end.  After Iraq someone else will come along.  Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world.  It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do.  These acts of violence are not going to help.

We did that, it didn't work remember.

I'm not talking about what Bin Laden has said.  I'm talking about what those people think and feel deep inside.

 

I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day.  This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different.  There really are no comparisons.

In other words those of yesteryear had more of a backbone.

Well when you put it that way I guessi t's totally justifyable.  What???  Guess I missed something.  I thought we had a national debt.

Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone.  This war has hardly contributed to the National Debt as you seem to think also.