Terrorists Cast Their Ballot

The simplist way to pick a candidate is still to vote for those the terrorists would not. Anybody out there believe the terrorists would ever vote to retain the Republican majority? The choice is therefore simple.

JDComments,
The question assumes that the Republicans, because of their support for a raw show of force, are the terrorists' worst nightmare. But consider that Bush's policies have increased the number of terrorist recruits, this war on terror, not just the War on Iraq, is showing some similarities with the Vietnam War.

Every General I have heard has said we won all of the battles in Vietnam but lost the war because we lost the people--this might be due to the fact that we, THE USA, killed between 500,000 to 2,000,000 or more civilians during the war. In essence, we lost the war because despite the number VC and NV troops killed, we could not stop the increase in the number of fighters we had to fight. This is just one of several similarities that our war on Terror has with Vietnam. Our overuse and indiscriminate use of force is increasing the support for our enemies. That being the case, something that has been documented by several sources including Rumsfeld for the past couple of years, I would vote in the politicians whose policies gained support for my cause. Thus, perhaps the terrorists would vote for the Republicans.

Those who are proud of our might and our use of force just might be resembling the officers on the Death Star in Episode 4 who said that that Death Star was the ultimate power in the universe. And how did that work out for them?

Hey! Can I get one of those little tin foil hats you liberals are always wearing?

Charbookguy,
Is the tin foil hat comment your best comeback? I am disappointed. I thought for sure that since conservatives boast of emphasizing substance over style, that your reply would have more factual content.

Here are some interesting stats. Since 2004, a number of people, including Rummy, have stated that we are creating more terrorists than we can kill. In addition, if you check the State Department's statistics, acts of terrorism have increased since the invasion of Iraq. In fact, Britain can no longer say that they are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that they don't have to fight them at home because they have had two terrorist attacks that were reactions to Britain's contribution to the war on Iraq.

In addition, much of the world now has a more negative view of us than before. Much of the world now sees us as the greatest threat to peace. And we flaunt our hypocrisy before the world. We don't care if we go against the will of the international community but we will invade or ask for sanctions for those countries when their violations of the will of the international community goes against our desires.

See, what I just mentioned was a small sampling of substance. There is much substance I haven't mentioned that you could describe better than I. But instead, you substituted a silly little remark for substance. Why?

You are right, tin foil hat is beneath me. I'll let the liberal's friends, the communists and the terrorists prove my point:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/783/1/56/

You have yet to engage in a real logical discussion here. That was something I was hoping for

Sorry, I can't take someone seriously who compares our very real troops to fictional characters from Star Wars. Maybe you should write Sen. Kerry, who likely agrees with your point of view.

Your comment is simply an excuse for ignoring a logical challenge.