[Raiyven]

Originally Posted by LoS-NutzholzWolf

Now heres the question: If Bush wasn't elected as president the first time, then what would have the other person chosen when faced by a country cry out for blood after 9/11? If Bush wasn't re-elected as president, what could have been done to change the situation without making the problem worst then it already is? Also to continue of the last question, if the Democrats won the presidency in the last election then would they have also won Congress?

He has a point. Would another, completely different candidate had a different response to 9/11? Or, would another, completely different candidate really made any difference since the 2004 election?

And like he (and I) said, there's no guarantee things would've been any different with someone else winning the presidency, and again as we've both said, if you don't have the support of Congress there isn't a great deal you can do. Yes, Bush as a person is not very intelligent. But at the same time, can you tell me definitely that Edwards wouldn't have done the same things he has? There's always the chance that he might not have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan. But Afghanistan, as a reactionary measure to 9/11, could be argued as a sure bet.

And on the point I made on censorship: yes, those are regional implementations, this I understand. What I should have clarified was that the majority of those texts were banned for unsavoury content as would be seen under Christian morality. Ours is NO LESS a Christian state than the one to the south.

And also:

Originally Posted by SiFi

Great peacekeeping job there, really showing them who's boss. Now instead of just saying how much they hate the US, they can get out there and show it, without all the hassle of leaving the country.

Your political views aside, friggin Jester was over there, man! Jeez.

And in some ways it's not like our peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is going remarkably well. The only difference is that I don't think we have a majority of the population pissed off at us as well.

You're talking about problems in Congress as if it's the only political structure that has any corruption. I don't even *need* to point out the fallacy there. As immaterial and subjective as the concept is, selfishness is simply a human trait. Again, look at home: sponsorship scandal? Was that not a pet project in which large amounts of money were re-routed somewhere?

I'm sorry my friend, but your last statement is undermining your arguments to some degree:

Originally Posted by SiFi

Any opinion I could give would be tainted by my knowledge of what has happened over these past six years.

I'm having a hard time viewing much of your argument with academic objectivity because some of it is rooted in narrow bias. I'm not trying to ignore the things you're presenting, but rather that they are not unique to the US, and just on speculation there is no guarantee that, given 9/11 as an circumstance, reactionary measures following would have been any different.

And on Iraq again: say tomorrow the Admin says 'alright, thats it, we're done here'. You think demobilization will happen in a day? Besides, it's partially evident that radical elements may have some degree of popular support. The US leaves, you have a bloody coup, civilians die, and the whole region destabilizes further. Yes, I think it's awful that people are dying over there, of all nationalities. But with a US-backed government in place there, again, while not entirely stable it is still FAR more predictable than some radical ass in a top hat that would take its place should the US demobilize.