Presidential Debate

[Chaerophon]

Simple answer. I included the entire paragraph so that there would be some context.

Maybe this is why we went to Iraq? No we can't have that. What would the Bush haters cry about then? Instead of "Bush lied, people died." they would have to say "Bush told us what he was going to do, but we don't care anymore because the rubble of the WTC has been cleaned up."

A rather huge stretch. Add the emotional appeal of "WTC rubble" and you've said... absolutely nothing!

Apparently Americans and the world still didn't expect it. Maybe they think "lengthy" means "over by next year".

Nope. By "lengthy" most assumed that subsequent battles would be against those most relevant to the terorist threat. For instance, finishing matters in Afghanistan before extending operations to Iraq. Fact is, Iraq didn't really have much of anything to do with terrorism. It was, perhaps, a broader political and economic security issue that "needed to be dealt with" (in view of the larger context of American political hegemony). Equating Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

Well the first was definantly true. Considering there isn't another flaming building in America, and the terrorists' desire to make it happen, I think it is safe to say the second prediction has come to pass.

Well. We shall see about that. As far as I can tell, fundamentalist Islam and the "terrorist world" has at least as much, if not more support now, post-Iraq than it did before operations commenced.

Sounds good. This actually bothers you?

Sure, it sounds great. Point is that there is more to stopping terrorists than chasing them around. In the process of invading Iraq, American military involvement has probably bred as many new terrorists as it has caught. Granted, sovereign nations might think twice before harbouring terrorists. However, they can't really do much other than 'act nice' at an ambassadorial level if the bulk, or even a significant percentage of their populations support the terrorists.

Maybe this is his point that makes you cringe. Well if Canada, France, or Germany did the above I would certainly say they chose "with the terrorists" instead of "with us".

Did you read my post? I don't think that you understood it. You did not address the point, that's for sure. Bush, or more accurately, his strategic 'team', was completely ambiguous with their blanket statement, and it was intentional. "With us or against us" is an empty and counterproductive rhetoric. Allow me to oversimplify to a ridiculous extent; as sovereign nations, we reserve the right to judge what is justified and useful and what is not. It is possible for 'us' to disagree with US action. In so doing, we may not necessarily be 'supporting' terrorists. If Canada decides that they don't want to deport citizens without due process a la the Patriot Act, is it really the US's place to hold such an ambiguous threat over our head? I guess in some senses, it's not a matter of 'right or wrong'. Fair enough. It just 'is'. Regardless, the threat remains.