Elk,
“but you must see how you leave your argument open ended!”
Nope. There’s nothing open-ended in the argument. If we wipe out the terrorists tomorrow, of course we have won. If terrorists continue to plague us for the next decade, of course we will have expected it. You’re not making sense.
“You seem to hold the theory that the only way to overcome the terrorist problem was to invade Iraq!”
Again, no. Never said that was the only way. There are many ways - improving internal security and defense, taking war to the Middle East…I’d even throw in free trade.
You jump to conclusions. Waging war in Iraq is part of a larger battle, but it is not the only thing to be done to combat the plague of Islamofascism. Iraq was a good start. One of the perceptions of the Islamofascists is that Western countries are too weak, ricj, comfortable, and timid to hit back. Iraq disrupts that perception quite nicely.
“I have faith that throught other actions military included we could have found a winning solution.”
Like what?
“Iraq if the reasons given were truthful and proper planning went into it.”
Disagreeing with the planning is fair, but who lied to you, Elk? And remember the definition of lying - to willfully deceive. You think Bush actually believed their were no WMDs in Iraq? Odd - even the USNC Resolution stated a fear that Saddam still had WMDs.
“if Kerry is elected we are suddenly going to fall victim to the terrorists and lose “The war on terror”?”
Not instantly, but long-term, having Kerry at the helm will weaken us. He doesn’t have the resolve to confront the enemies of America with impunity - he’d rather apologize to them and offer them money for their troubles.
Again, peace is managed, we must be thinking of the long-term, not short-term victories. Kerry, and the Democratic party in general, no have an attitude of defeatism, apologism, and appeasement. In short, weakness.
That’s one reason why Kerry won’t get my vote. Weakness invites aggression.