Your self-interest is precisely however you define it. I never, ever vote anything other than in what I believe is the long-term best strategy for my self interest. I wish everybody did. I fear that most people vote some dumb-headed partyline without considering what is best for them as individuals. I have even heard people say that since they don't understand some issue, they trust their favorite party to make the best suggestion for voting. I wish those people would go fishing on election day.

Bot

IF it is a misuse. I believe it is NOT a misuse, and therefore, the likely byproduct will be the destabilization of antidemocratic regimes in that region. A good thing.

B

The US specializes in destabilizing democratically elected governments and installing quasi-fascist client states. In this case, it looks like we toppled a secular and reasonably moderate (by Western standards), yet isolated regime and succeeded in replacing it with a conservative, backward-looking Islamic state, connected (by virtue of their contempt for the US) to every other Islamic backwater in the world--and we earned the enmity of the entire globe in the process. Thanks PNAC!

I still don't see how voting in the mid-terms does anything to alter our current course, except to send a weak "message" to a junta that doesn't much care to be sent messages that deviate from PNAC's script.

Hey I know -- let's put some Chile on that dog...

After carefully reading what you wrote, I am at a loss for a response because I missed a core point.

A moderate state was toppled. Oh wait, a "reasonably moderate state." Which was that, Afghanistan or Iraq?

Bot

Parador :D

Ohhhh paaarrraaadooor.

I said an opinion CAN be a lie, in this case it is, hence she is a liar.

Besides, I already posted another lie by her, blatant. She claims to the media her purpose is to have a meeting with Bush, but a much lesser publicized interview, which I heard her own voice, she said she hopes he doesnt meet with her, that it will be better for her side if he doesnt.

Calling someone a pedophile or a terrorist can be a statement of fact or opinion. If you called me either, you would be wrong, but you might not know for sure, as my life is not scrutinized like the presidents is.

There are no actions, according to definition, that he has carried out that make him a terrorist, unless he has sent plain clothes people into civilian locations with the intent of blowing up civilians, and civilians only. If you know of such an event, please inform me. So he is , IN FACT not a terrorist, unless you can provide such facts.

But anyways, her first lie is not refutable.

The anti war idiots also force us to often tie the hands of our soldiers, so to speak.

I thought it was you, maybe not, who is for more or less just going in and leveling things, like in Fallujah, its the anti war idiots who prevent us from doing that or being really serious, its the anti war idiots who dont allow "profiling" at airports. Its the anti war idiots that fuel terrorists optimism that we might cave in.

"a reasonably moderate state" I guess that depends on if you are on the top or bottom when a bride is being raped at her wedding, with the police watching guard.

I'm at a loss for a means to make it any easier to understand, so we'll both just have to accept yet another "known unknown" into our desperate little lives--I'm cool with that.

Whichever state formerly allowed women to become as educated and influential as the desired and to dress in ghastly western garb--I forget which already.

Uh, just 'cause you say that you can't make it any easier to understand therefore we have to accept a "known unknown", whatever that might be, doesn't change the fact that neither Iraq nor Afghanastan were moderate states prior to overthrow of their respective governments. Congratulations though, I think you've reached an all time low, or high as it may be for some, in moral relativism.

So, dear Mr. Peroxide, tell us how Al Qaida and Hezbollah, et. al. remind you of our founding fathers. That's a fun story.

So if they dress purdy, they're models of moderation. I'll have to check Cambodia under Pol Pot. This is interesting political insight.

Why won't you tell us exactly what she said?

Not really, the rules have been drawn for 50 years and it makes a darn good excuse. Having been in a dozen "conflicts" I have a pretty good feel for what is good policy and was is not. The Bush admins policy on the use of force is good, its the number of troops using force that I have a problem with and civilians doing the planning. It's the talking heads that do the planning, if we had listened to the generals at the beginning of the war that demanded 500,000 troops this war would be in the history books like Desert Storm.

Sometimes we have admit were wrong and think outside the box, I couldn't be within 500 yards of one of these protests without blowing my lid and i despise a number of the protestors because of their subversive agenda. Unfortunatly their getting more done than the yes yes yes yes drones that are supporting how the war is being ran while they know nothing about waging war.