<p>I never had a problem with Bush’s plan to go after bin Ladin and his Taliban cronies in Afghanistan. I was right there with him, mad as hell! What horrified me is when he suddenly switched rails and turned attention to Iraq, when our situation in Afghanistan was FAR from “mission accomplished.” I think most of us, even we raving, bleeding-heart, knee-jerk liberals, understood the need to do something immediate and forceful after 9/11. At that point, I was so blindly enraged at what had been done to our country, if the military had been willing to issue assault rifles to middle-aged women, I’d have happily joined the front lines in Afghanistan–and put away as many Taliban as my trigger-happy finger was capable of doing! I never understood why Bush saw fit to suddenly switch rails, hopelessly stretching our military and financial resources by attacking Iraq simultaneously with our war in Afghanistan. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t know all the details, you don’t know all the details. I doubt McCain or Obama know everything. There will be some facts they won’t get until they are sworn in. The cynic in me says that it is all about oil…that may be the case in the long run. That, however, is merely an opinion and before I string someone by their toes I would want more than that. As an example, to this day people still believe the primary reason for fighting the Civil War was slavery. Not true but it’s still the thought.</p>
<p>Hindoo - re: post #221. Did you ever stop to think that we needed a base of operations in the ME in order to stage a fight in Afghanistan? Iraq offered the best option for that, esp. b/c in doing so, we could ostensibly get rid of Saddam in the process. The fact that Iraq BECAME the battlefield against muslim extremists was not such a totally negative consequence b/c the flats of Iraq are preferable to the caves of Afghanistan for doing battle.</p>
<p>Now, we’ve just about accomplished our goal in Iraq & are all set to focus of Afghanistan w/ a means to support the battle.</p>
<p>“As an example, to this day people still believe the primary reason for fighting the Civil War was slavery. Not true but it’s still the thought.”</p>
<p>That thought is based in cold, hard historical fact. I do not wish to hijack this thread with a debate over he Civil War, but you will leave me no choice but to try my best to promote the historical fact of this issue should you continue to promote neo-confederate nonsense here.</p>
<p>The major leaders of the South at the time, those who had power to begin and maintain the war, were very clear that the main reason they seceded and then fought the Civil War was because of slavery. There were other issues, of course, as is almost always the case with war or any other world event, but due to the southern leaders themselves, reputable historians agree that slavery was the [“chief</a> and immediate cause of the war”.]( <a href=“http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War.html]“chief”>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War.html)</p>
<p>Slavery was certainly a factor and I did a poor job of defining my point. You are correct. The economic impact of slavery was one of the key causes. I should have elaborated and said that freeing the slaves was not the reason. I stand corrected. I do like this article. Explains it pretty well.</p>
<p>[Gett</a> Kidz- What were they fighting about?](<a href=“http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm]Gett”>http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm)</p>
<p>Swatparent, did you actually read the whole speech, or just the “typical white person” line? He obviously loves and respects his grandmother very much.</p>
<p>Why was there a need to refer to race (skin color) at all? The only reason I refer to someone’s race is as a way of identifying. My wife works with two women named Tracey. One is black, one is white. When she references Tracey in a conversation…if I am unsure which one she is talking about I will ask if it is “white Tracey” or “black Tracey”.</p>
<p>Perhaps because the entire speech was about race, in response to racist comments by Reverend Wright?</p>
<p>On behalf of “black Tracey,” I’m outraged!</p>
<p>but not “white Tracey”? Why is that?</p>
<p>Because I’m a seething, Bush-hating racist!</p>
<p>One thing that has fascinated me about this campaign is how often the “gaffe” that got the candidate (or his surrogate) into trouble was something that was actually true. I guess it’s how you say it. For example, Phil Gramm was probably right that we’re not in a recession (at least not yet). Obama was certainly right that the “typical white person” is made nervous by black people on the street, at least in certain situations. Hillary was right when she talked about white voters. Even what Wesley Clark said about McCain was true, although rude.</p>
<p>Excellent point, Hunt.</p>
<p>Just goes to the point that people can’t or don’t want to hear what is true. Politicians lie a great deal of the time because the truth wouldn’t get them elected. We elect them on the lie and hope they do what is in our best interest (the truth a lot of the times).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the link Drosselmeier, I didn’t know that most Northerners didn’t oppose slavery, that they really were only worried about its expansion because of economic reasons. Puts a whole new slant on the whole thing.</p>
<p>Interesting…</p>
<p>
Completely ridiculous! And in a nation of over 300 million people, there is no such thing as a “typical” person of ANY race.</p>
<p>Yes, good post Hunt.</p>
<p>And, pmrlcomm, that’s true. We just end up crossing our fingers that they end up being more like the hype/lies during the campaign.</p>
<p>bush obviously didn’t:( Certainly not the uniter he was touted to be…</p>
<p>Come on, StickerShock, you know better. Typical doesn’t mean that every single person in the group is the same, but if you don’t think white people are afraid of black people, I have a Willie Horton I’d like to sell you.</p>
<p>Yes I listened to the entire speech and was appalled. I think that he could have more respect for his grandmother who raised him. He said that he could not disown Reverend Wright any more than he could disown his own grandmother. I didn’t know that disowning the relative that raised you and sacrificed much of her life for him would be an option. It showed to me that he is just full of political expediency in the worst way. </p>
<p>As far as categorizing people, if he sees the world in this way, then I don’t think it productive. It also invites polarization.</p>
<p>Sorry, I just think he has a very flawed character and I would not ever vote for him. I am not comparing him to Mccain or looking at Democrat vs Republican or Green party, etc. I just think he is a not a good candidate for president and hope he loses.</p>
<p>Willie Horton was a viscious criminal. You’d be a fool not to fear him. I sure would, regardless of his race.</p>
<p>The point being made with those Horton ads was that leniency in the criminal justice system, specifically the idiotic Dukakis furlough program, would lead to more violent crime committed by released criminals. If the tragic crime story in Massachusetts had surrounded a white criminal, his face in a campaign ad would have been just as effective. Whether you are stabbed & left to bleed to death by a white guy or a black guy, you are still dead.</p>