RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Made Karzei mayor of Kabul - that's all.

Waste of time trying to talk to Rednecks, Magellan, that would require them to have brain cells. Take a slight as 'being European' as a compliment to your sanity. You know, the more I read the extreme comments on this site from you guys about Europeans the more I feel we really do no longer have a friend and ally in the US, particularly when there are some European forces helping you out (and dying for) a war everyone advised you against. Perhaps indeed we should all just let you get on with it yourself. As you say, you don't want us and we certainly don't want to be embroiled in a mess with you and endangering us all further, so that seems pretty much fair and square to me. That would be a shame given the heartfelt and positive feelings everyone shared after 9/11, equally for the need to cooperate and fight the terrorists, but what does the Bush admin care about that, huh? Quote: We won't have any countries telling us what we can and can't do regarding our security'. I don't think anyone did question what you needed to do regarding your security - in fact, they would have helped. But why cannot the rednecks see that the War in Iraq was a deliberate act against the international interests of finding and dealing with the terrorists, notwithstanding Saddam's cruel leadership? As for Afghanistan, the elections ARE indeed welcome news...and everyone thought the effort to get rid of the Taliban was commendable...but who put them there in the first place? Surprise!! We're only undoing what we screwed up the first time round.

UPDATE: So, let me get this straight. I (and Lance) earn the epithet red-neck because we don't accord John Kerry (or in my case any other politician) credit for having the stones to do something he has never done, has never stated he would do, has criticized the sitting President, in time of war (consistent with his own background and track record) for doing and has assured his followers that he will pullout of if elected (later recanted or further nuanced). But somehow, HE would have done all the same things Bush would have done. What leads anyone to this hyperbole? Can anyone connect the dots? ORIGINAL POST (10/20/04): Lance and mag have it covered here, an incredibly important event, which has taken a lot of the bluster out of the anti-war crowd, in spite of being almost completely ignored by the US mainstream press. Is there a bigger story anywhere in the world right now? OK, the war in Iraq and the US presidential election, but any others? And how much time is spent covering it, other than a few inevitable election glitches? One minor contradiction: Bush isn't the only president who would've taken out the Taliban regime, mag? My opinion: there isn't even a republican I would give credit for having the stones to do that, no democratic pretender for the presidency has even claimed (as laughable as the contention would be) that he (or she/Hillary) would have done the same thing and to imply otherwise is not accurate. When this happens in Iraq, you'll need your magnifying glass again to find some coverage of it, as incredibly important as that day will be.

The elections are proof that the Bush Doctrine is working. If George Bush was not the president women would still be getting butchered by the Taliban regime instead of voting. The Afghan people would still be living under an oppressive Islamofascist regime and not building a better freer future for themselves. Bush has led and Bush has succeeded in Afghanistan. And though things are messy in Iraq- war always is- Afghan elections prove that if we have the will the universal human right- freedom-can be gained for everyone who wishes to be free. This will make not only America but the world a safer place. *****One thing I can assure you Magellan: if Kerry was president Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control oppressing the citizens, butchering its women and a thriving hot spot of terrorism. It's funny how short people's memories are. Does anyone remember all the doom and gloom warnings from the liberal media when we were invading? the Soviets couldn't win there in ten years...yada, yada, yada Yet again the liberal media always disrespects and slights the greatest military this world has ever scene. But more to my point: Kerry took the side of the Vietcong, the Sandinistas, he supported a nuclear freeze while Reagan was escalating the arms race, he voted against every major weapon system since the slingshot, and Gulf War I. And now that he cast one vote for authorizing the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time... the grand diversion before quickly reversing back to his dovish record by once again abandoning the troops in harms way and voting against their funding we're suppose to believe HE- JOHN KERRY(?) would have invaded and liberated Afghanistan? Yeah and Im sure Carter would have too! Give me a break. ****** European? Ouch! That must have hurt, even for a San Franciscan. LOL In reality however post Vietnam liberals simply are unwilling to utilize military force. Kerry is literally running on the argument that we should appease our enemies right now by not building weapons that would assist us in toppling terrorist regimes. He took the same position during the Cold War. Doves are doves and that is that. If he couldn't find reason to vote for the use of force in Gulf War I when would he?

Elections in Afghanistan is an exciting, and positive thing. I'm not sure that George Bush is the only US President that would have taken out the regime that enabled the 9/11 attacks - in fact, I think that assertion is preposterous - but I am thrilled about elections in Afghanistan, and it is certainly a positive outcome of a Bush decision. **** Guys, I think you do your selves a disservice, and take credibility from yourselves, by your continued claims that only politicians from your political party of choice are capable of acting with common sense. I think both of you guys would claim that I tend to come in on the liberal side of things. My viewpoint has been labeled by both of you as pathetic, naive, liberal, lerch loving,european, and tons of other clever labels. Yet if you go back to my post from 9/12/01 on the topic of Using Force Against Nations that the Harbor Terrorists, here is what I said, As long as regimes in Iran, Afghanistan, and Libya continue to ride the fence about their policies towards known terrorists, the world is a more dangerous place. I believe that we should come down hard on these kinds of countries - including the use of military force to prevent terrorist organizations from having a safe harbor. And this is from a wacky, peacenik San Franciscan. Yet you claim that only your side has the cajones to move against Afghanistan? I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem taking out a regime that enabled 9/11. But to take out a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to us, and do so in the name of 9/11 is poor leadership. At best, your position is oversimplistic and misleading. At worst, it is more partisan hackery from two guys who should be above that crap.