Last Throes

[shots]

If you don't even understand the point I'm making then you clearly are not looking at the big picture.

[MMMMMM]

The things you are worried about, Kurto, are of far less importance than the things Zeno mentions.

[ACPlayer]

A plan does not have to define and end date. In fact, I am not particularly keen on an end date definition.

A plan gives the executive a road map of how to move forward. To evaluate whether objectives are being met and if not how to reassess the situation. A plan does not commit one to an exact sequence of events.

In this case a plan that spells out a series of actionable objectives which define an end state would be helpful. That is we achieve these three measurable goals, we are done. At present there is no definition of success or failure.

[kurto]

Perhaps your point is based on completely erroneous information?

[kurto]

Seems an arbitrary reply.

Zeno is basically arguing we can attack whomever we choose and just write it off as 'the war on terror.'

The right's attitude; I don't care if the war was based on the lie, as long as we call it 'war on terror' we'll excuse anything. Baaaaa Baaaaa

[shots]

It seems we don't really disagree then. This whole debate started over the setting of an exit date which I thaught was ridiculous and which democrates have called for. A plan on the other hand is entirely different but if we do have a plan is it wise to make it public?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The best or perhaps worst part of the 'War on Terror' is that it is completely open-ended and can be used to justify everything from kidnapping potential enemies in complete disregard of international law and state sovereignty, to small-scale excursions to bitch slap some irksome fanatics, to wholesale nuclear slaughter of despotic and/or theocratic states, or any other activity we feel like calling terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like even you guys admit the administration is a bunch of war mongering crooks.

[/ QUOTE ]

admit it, like it, vote for it, and want more of it.

[shots]

Your reply to my original post on Iraq being part of the war on terror indicated that you think I was talking about Iraq supporting terrorists (Which they did to some degree) But that's not what I was talking about, that's why I said BIG PICTURE Winning the war on terror will require more then just going after people that have already done stuff to us it will require preventing people from doing things to us in the future. And the way to do that is not through appeasement as most liberals suggest.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems an arbitrary reply.

Zeno is basically arguing we can attack whomever we choose and just write it off as 'the war on terror.'

The right's attitude; I don't care if the war was based on the lie, as long as we call it 'war on terror' we'll excuse anything. Baaaaa Baaaaa

[/ QUOTE ]


The lefts attitude: We don't care if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror in that it's part of a sound long term strategy......NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
We don't care if every major intelligence agency in the world thaught Saddam had WMD's......BUSH LIED!!!