Oh good. So they'll only be slightly late in helping us confront a nuclear middle east. Well that's OK then. And that's presuming we do nothing to piss them off and make them openly oppose our views on how the war on terror should be fought ... like, say, invade Iraq.
Alex, Al Qaida and the Islamofascists in the Paki military didn't want anything to do with Saddam. He ran a secular state that they didn't like. Your president has even admitted there is no link, so stop playing this game.
I don't disagree but that wasn't really my point. It just seems from reading the article that the responses from the people who were polled were often contradictory depending on how the question or issue was posed. Based on this, it's my opinion that it's a stretch to say that this poll indicates that Democrats (much less their leaders) do not care about terrorism or combatting it.
You missed my point, you wrote "Saddam is in bed with someone in the Paki military", I was assuming you meant to write "Osama". He admitted there's no link between Saddam and 9/11, not that there's no link between Saddam and AQ. And no the 2 aren't one and the same, for instance Jemallayah Islam (sp, the fundie group in Indonesia) was not behind 9/11 either but they're indisputably linked to AQ. Same with Moro Islamic Liberation Front aka MILF (hey, does that make the US troops stationed in the Phillipines and Filipino government troops Milf Hunters?).
I said "within the next 10 years". It's already in progress, just a question of how long it will take until the alliance becomes too obvious to ignore. Germany and Canada, among others, also opposed our actions in Iraq (admittedly the Canadian people supported us even if Cretin didn't), and no-one is saying that our alliances with those countries are irreparably harmed. We don't have the same history with Russia that we do with Germany and Canada obviously, but Iraq won't be a permanent setback.
Of course we are bogged down in Iraq. They arn't any closer to running themselves, and we arn't any closer to making it a peaceful place. And 87 billion is plenty, even to us. And willpower has nothing to do with fighting terrorism (and I mean the real fight, which is conducted behind the scenes and not in the media, not the occupation of Iraq or the power mongering that lets cops bully people that want to fly or take pictures of bridges).
Why should I? Why should anyone? (1) Bush, Cheney, and Condi might as well be Saudi agents, for the amount of good they're doing to suppress Saudi support of terrorism. (2) Either we bug out of Iraq, or we bankrupt ourselves conquering SA and Pakistan while simultaneously occupying Iraq. Well, or we nuke them. But then, that's a plank on my presidential platform, and I don't think Manny's sent me any contributions. And I'm WAY behind in Iowa and New Hampshire right now.
What if everyone got together and said "you know, this Islamofascist stuff really isnt good for anybody. Let's nuke the Whahabbi bastards." I'm starting to kinda agree with you Luney as much as it scares me to say.
There is thing called speculation. I understand your point, though. Besides, I just heard Lou Dobbs talking about this. I would guess that CNN is mainstream enough, along with the Washington Times. I just cant predict what the media finds important anymore.
Has anyone told India? I'm doubting Bush has. He's probably got his staff checking whether or not US forces would be best inserted up through Kentucky or across from Ohio. Nor is anyone saying that they will be key members of an alliance to defeat Pakistani support of global terrorism and blatant WMD proliferation 'within 10 years'. We do. That whole India thing led to a rather ugly spat in the Crimea. Turns out this is not the first time western leaders have badly miscalculated Russia's willingness to play ball in their traditional sphere of influence.
Despite history, Russia,India, and USA will be and allready are close alies. Simple reason: They have the same enemies. Revolutionary(aka political,fundamentalist) Islam and China.
That was a pretty cool war, though, because it gave us Florence Nightingale and "The Charge of the Light Brigade."
It is not in Russias interest to have a world dominated by America. They want a multipolar world. So they actually have more in common with China than they have with the US
Russia might not like America’s domination but: 1)They can’t do anything about it 2)It doesn’t really hurt them China and the spread of Islam are much bigger threats to them
They can NOT do whatever they want though. Tell that to the Russian politicians watching American influence - commercial, cultural and political - grow exponentially in every ex-Soviet possession from the Baltic to the Bosphorus. Until Islam is building Burger joints on the outskirts of Mother Russia's ample apron, the big worry is US predominance, not Chechenya-style Islamic bovver bods.
Is the US killing Russian civilians (heart attacks due to McDonald's don't count)? Is the US preparing to eventually invade the Russian Far East? They might not like our cultural influence, but we don't pose a security threat to them. Islamic radicals do now, and China will in the near future.