obama presidency would embolden terrorists

[Captain Megaton 0]

THE NEW YORK POST 10/20/08

IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our republic will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness.

Add in Sen. Joe Biden - with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years - as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we'd face a formula for strategic disaster.

Where would the avalanche of confrontations come from?

* Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.

* Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against "their" terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can't control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan - and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind.

* Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

* Israel. In the Middle East, Obama's election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate.

* Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too.

* Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia's new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko - a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator - the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.

* Georgia. Our Georgian allies should dust off their Russian dictionaries.

* Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will intensify the rape of his country's hemorrhaging democracy and, despite any drop in oil revenue, he'll do all he can to export his megalomaniacal version of gun-barrel socialism. He'll seek a hug-for-the-cameras meet with President Obama as early as possible.

* Bolivia. Chavez client President Evo Morales could order his military to seize control of his country's dissident eastern provinces, whose citizens resist his repression, extortion and semi-literate Leninism. President Obama would do nothing as yet another democracy toppled and bled.

* North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.

* NATO. The brave young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will be gravely discouraged, while the appeasers in Western Europe will again have the upper hand. Putin will be allowed to do what he wants.

* The Kurds. An Obama administration will abandon our only true allies between Tel Aviv and Tokyo.

* Democracy activists. Around the world, regressive regimes will intensify their suppression - and outright murder - of dissidents who risk their lives for freedom and justice. An Obama administration will say all the right things, but do nothing.

* Women's rights. If you can't vote in US elections, sister, you're screwed. Being stoned to death or buried alive is just a cultural thing.

* Journalists. American journalists who've done everything they can to elect Barack Obama can watch as regimes around the world imprison, torture and murder their foreign colleagues, confident that the US has entered an era of impotence. The crocodile tears in newsrooms will provide drought relief to the entire southeastern US.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush. The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency - only far worse.

Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.

SOURCE(new York Post)

[AROCES 2]

Jimmy Carter's second term......

[InHuman 1]

Alright. I'm just gonna stand back and wait until someone can tell you how wrong you are more eloquently then I can.

[Incorrigible1 11]

Evidently Biden agrees:

Barack Obama will face an international crisis early in his presidency, Joe Biden warns, fueling Republican charges that the Democratic presidential candidate's own running mate admits Obama is a blank slate in the face of coming national security threats.

Speaking in Seattle on Sunday, Biden said he could guarantee that the world will want to find out if Obama is up to the job, which he assured voters he is.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking," Biden said.

"Remember I said it standing here. if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen," Biden continued.

The Delaware senator's remarks were the second of their kind over the weekend. At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Biden said Obama's challengers will "find out this guy's got steel in his spine" whenhe is tested.

The McCain campaign jumped on Biden's remarks, saying the next president "won't have time to get used to the office."

"Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new president," reads a memo from the McCain campaign. "We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars. ...

"Senator Obama wont have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. ... We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction, and we have to fight for it," the statement said.

During a McCain campaign press conference on Monday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also weighed in on the Democratic vice presidential candidate's remarks, saying they reveal that "Biden continues to harbor doubts that Obama is ready to be commander-in-chief."

But Democratic aides said that Biden was merely reciting history and assuring supporters that Obama is the man for the job.

"Sen. Biden was making it clear that history has shown presidents face challenges starting on day one, and with our nation fighting two wars and 21st century threats abroad, we know that we need steady leadership in tumultuous times, not the erratic lurching and stubborn ideology of John McCain," said Biden spokesman David Wade

source

[InHuman 1]

Bush had a big test. An avoidable test. He failed.

Clinton had quite a few tests. He failed.

[AROCES 2]

Bush had a big test. An avoidable test. He failed.

No attack since 9/11 so he failed???

[KyrusRose 0]

No attack since 9/11 so he failed???

7 years of occupation.. Yep, he failed.

[AROCES 2]

7 years of occupation.. Yep, he failed.

Let's hear it from the Iraqis then, well???

[Wickian 3,893]

Bush had a big test. An avoidable test. He failed.

Clinton had quite a few tests. He failed.

You can argue that Clinton screwed the country more than Bush did with all his policies. We'll see how much of an effect Bush's presidency will have in the long run during the upcoming terms.

[*Quinn* 3]

No attack since 9/11 so he failed???

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. That says A LOT! He most certainly did fail. Don't go trying to act like he did something good because we haven't been attacked since 9/11. How sad a state of mind is that? Before 9/11 we weren't really worried about terrorists or anyone else attacking us on our own soil. George Bush steps in the White House and Bang! - 9/11 hits us.

He then uses it as a reason to invade Iraq - something he planned on doing before 9/11 ever happened. He's failed miserably in terms of working for the American people. As far as accomplishing his own agenda, well yes, I guess he considers himself to be a huge success in that regard.

Amazes me that people really support this guy.

[KyrusRose 0]

Let's hear it from the Iraqis then, well???

The AVERAGE Iraqi, or the extremists? There's a difference, and for you to assume they're all terrorists is the same as them assuming every white American is a member of the KKK and a Nazi. Its just not true. I'm sure the normal citizens of Iraq where just fine with their part of the world right up until we walked into their front yard, set up a tent and pulled out our guns. Just like I'm sure, while I have no problem with anyone of middle eastern decent, I would be riled up as all hell if they planted a tank in my font yard and refused to leave. Bush is punishing an entire nation for the wrong doings of a few. We are punishing 28 million people for the wrongdoings of maybe a couple thousand.

Obama is going to have pressure from day one, but I think 28 million people over seas will be grateful to have their yards and their lives back. And prolly a few hundred million here at home.. who get their family members back.. alive.

[AROCES 2]

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. That says A LOT! He most certainly did fail. Don't go trying to act like he did something good because we haven't been attacked since 9/11. How sad a state of mind is that? Before 9/11 we weren't really worried about terrorists or anyone else attacking us on our own soil. George Bush steps in the White House and Bang! - 9/11 hits us.

He then uses it as a reason to invade Iraq - something he planned on doing before 9/11 ever happened. He's failed miserably in terms of working for the American people. As far as accomplishing his own agenda, well yes, I guess he considers himself to be a huge success in that regard.

Amazes me that people really support this guy.

First world trade center attack happened on Clinton's watch, that says a lot! The building survived and he most certainly did fail.

And don't go trying to act like there is really nothing to worry about then because nothing happend prior to 9/11.

Did Clinton pursue Al Qaeda? NO! For Clinton misread the terrorist and downplayed the attack, you and Clinton probably were afraid that you will make them more angry.

See, learn to throw in all the facts.

Edited October 21, 2008 by AROCES

[AROCES 2]

The AVERAGE Iraqi, or the extremists? There's a difference, and for you to assume they're all terrorists is the same as them assuming every white American is a member of the KKK and a Nazi. Its just not true. I'm sure the normal citizens of Iraq where just fine with their part of the world right up until we walked into their front yard, set up a tent and pulled out our guns. Just like I'm sure, while I have no problem with anyone of middle eastern decent, I would be riled up as all hell if they planted a tank in my font yard and refused to leave. Bush is punishing an entire nation for the wrong doings of a few. We are punishing 28 million people for the wrongdoings of maybe a couple thousand.

Alright, now lets go to reality. The Iraqis welcomed us and was glad to get rid of Saddam. We have not been chased out of there and the Iraqis formed their own govt and we gave Saddam back to them and they hanged him.

Not really your myth of they were way happier with Saddam. You can't continue on speaking for the Iraqis, they can speak for themselves.

Obama is going to have pressure from day one, but I think 28 million people over seas will be grateful to have their yards and their lives back. And prolly a few hundred million here at home.. who get their family members back.. alive.

I dare Obama to pull out of Iraq unconditionally, we can be out of there in a week. I really would dare and want him to do it and let's see what a smart of a thing to do that is.

[KyrusRose 0]

Alright, now lets go to reality. The Iraqis welcomed us and was glad to get rid of Saddam. We have not been chased out of there and the Iraqis formed their own govt and we gave Saddam back to them and they hanged him.

Not really your myth of they were way happier with Saddam. You can't continue on speaking for the Iraqis, they can speak for themselves.

As long as you're going to speak for them, why can't I, ya hypocrite?

If you're so sure they WANT us there, here's your chance to be a hero, sign up and head over seas and see how they greet you.

[AROCES 2]

As long as you're going to speak for them, why can't I, ya hypocrite?

If you're so sure they WANT us there, here's your chance to be a hero, sign up and head over seas and see how they greet you.

Oh no, I ain't speaking for them, I am telling you what is going on. Its' you who keep harping on what you think they are thinking and saying.

If you think they don't want us there, go join the insugents and show your support.

[Tiggs 6,941]

Ahem.

As I've just had to remove some posts, a reminder from the Forum's Terms and Conditions:

2b. Illegal material: Do not post material that is violative of any law or which describes or advocates illegal activities such as taking, growing, buying or selling drugs, the sale or promotion of weapons, hacking, trespassing, downloading pirated software, movies or music, participation in criminal offences or plans to enact criminal acts.

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Please avoid Ad Hominem attacks. Discuss the contents of the posts, rather than the members making them.

Thanks in advance

Tiggs

[Forum Mod Team]

[KyrusRose 0]

Oh no, I ain't speaking for them, I am telling you what is going on. Its' you who keep harping on what you think they are thinking and saying.

If you think they don't want us there, go join the insugents and show your support.

How is your opinion that they WANT us there any better then my opinion that they don't? You going to quote a few news articles saying they love us? And then I can quote a few saying they don't. The fact is they are both opinions, and yours is no better then mine, so get your head out of the clouds. As long as you have the right to speak your mind, so do I.

Not changing anything, just adding something

Sorry Tiggs, not flaming at all in what I just said, its a fact.

Edited October 21, 2008 by KyrusRose

[Guardsman Bass 0]

* Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.

Did this guy crawl out from 2004, or what? The Iraqis are the ones demanding that the American government set a clear timeline for withdrawal (which the government has more or less accepted will be 2011), and even before that deadline US troops will be drawing down and largely restricted to their bases except for select missions after 2008 (If I recall correctly, Maliki wants them out of Iraqi cities by sometime in 2009). His "promise to abandon Iraq" makes it sound like he's been under a rock for the past two months, particularly since Al-Qaeda in Iraq is dead, by and large. By his logic, the Bush Administration is being "soft on terror", along with the Iraqi government.

As for Afghanistan, I fail to see how wanting to send considerably more troops into Afghanistan, take more aggressive action against the Pakistani border camps, and overall expand the size of the military is somehow "soft on terror" - but I don't live in Republican Talking Point Land.

* Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against "their" terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can't control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan - and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind.

Please. Aside from the fact that there has been exactly zero proof for what he said in the last sentence, Obama's proposals for Afghanistan are, if anything, more irritating and reductionary towards Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to use Afghanistan as "strategic depth" when your "partner" has tens of thousands of troops sitting in it.

* Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

Of course, the author provides no distinction on why this would be specifically an Obama problem. McCain would have to deal with the same issue - and he'd arguably be even worse at it, since his idea of "diplomacy" equates to "Make massive concessions based on my distorted view of how Reagan conducted diplomacy in the Soviet Union, and then we'll talk - but I won't make any promises". And people wonder why Iran has more or less ignored all the US's bluster.

* Israel. In the Middle East, Obama's election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate.

Lebanon has already been disintegrating for a long time, with some recent "shoring up" (which didn't diminish Hezbollah's power). Of course, the author provides exactly no reasoning as to why part of judging a presidential candidate should include a referenda on how staunch his support for Israel is; frankly, Israel needs to be weaned off the teat a little.

That's not to mention that Hezbollah provoked a war with Israel in 2006, even with the staunchly pro-Israel Bush Administration in office.

* Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too.

He has absolutely no proof of this, of course - he simply assumes that the Saudis will think Obama is more "tolerant" towards militant Islam, even though he's never given off any signs of a position like that.

I'm getting sick of this guy's lies. That's what they largely are, in the end - they are lies, completely bald-faced assertions with no proof at all to back them, with as much veracity as those numbnuts screeching about the Illuminati.

* Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia's new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko - a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator - the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.

This is laughable. Apparently this writer forgot that a large part of Ukraine - the eastern Russian-speaking part - is more sympathetic to Russia (although still in favor of independence, along with Yakunyovich as well). The Russians might make a land grab for the Crimean Peninsula, but that's hardly the same as "the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe", or "gobble Ukraine next year". Hell, the Russians haven't even gobbled Belarus, and Belarus has been nothing if not a Russia-Yes-Man (in fact, my money is that it will probably coalesce back into Russia at some point).

What is shows, most importantly, is that the author belongs to the "Russian aggression" camp - the people who think that Big Bad Russia just decided to pick on Poor Widdle Georgia this summer, in spite of the fact that Georgia attacked first and fired on Russian peacekeepers in an enclave which they (the Georgians) mismanaged into rebellion not long after Georgia became an independent state.

* Georgia. Our Georgian allies should dust off their Russian dictionaries.

Which is why Russian troops are currently stationed in Tbilisi and throughout the strategic chokepoints of Georgia - oh wait, they're not. Again, I'm getting sick of this guy's ought-and-ought lies and bull - he clearly knows nothing about the situation other than what he's no doubt absorbed from other Republitard russophobes.

* Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will intensify the rape of his country's hemorrhaging democracy and, despite any drop in oil revenue, he'll do all he can to export his megalomaniacal version of gun-barrel socialism. He'll seek a hug-for-the-cameras meet with President Obama as early as possible.

He acts like this is a bad thing. Seeing as how the Bush approach has done nothing if not drive Chavez into flagrant defiance and search for outside military sponsors, I don't see how actually negotiating with him will hurt.

* Bolivia. Chavez client President Evo Morales could order his military to seize control of his country's dissident eastern provinces, whose citizens resist his repression, extortion and semi-literate Leninism. President Obama would do nothing as yet another democracy toppled and bled.

The fact that Morales was elected democratically apparently escapes him. And to think that these types of guys call themselves the promoters of democracy and accuse left-wingers of being insufficiently devoted to it . . .

* North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.

Since when? Has it gotten any less of a generous deal under Bush than it did under Clinton? It looks like our little Republitard author is throwing stones from a glass house (again); he won't come out and out and say that he thinks the US should invade North Korea or threaten them with it, but he gets a hard-on from macho rhetoric and apparently thinks it means something and solves problem.

* NATO. The brave young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will be gravely discouraged, while the appeasers in Western Europe will again have the upper hand. Putin will be allowed to do what he wants.

Of course, he provides no proof that an Obama administraiton wouldn't be supportive of the Eastern Europeans (who, by the way, are hardly helpless - they're part of the EU now). Friendly Republitard Author needs to pull his head out of his 1980s' era ***.

* The Kurds. An Obama administration will abandon our only true allies between Tel Aviv and Tokyo.

Yadda, yadda, yadda no proof.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush. The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency - only far worse.

Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.

SOURCE(new York Post)

If by "Great Man" you mean an impetuous old fart who has his head firmly up Ronald Reagan's rotting *** on foreign policy, and sees everything as Cold War 2.

You know what the irony is? Actual inside people -including Bob Gates, the current Secretary of Defense who wrote about this in his memoirs From the Shadows - pointed out that Carter's strong human rights rhetoric and covert operations efforts (the Carter Presidency started the program of assisting the Mujahideen) actually was quite helpful in both galvanizing anti-Soviet oppression efforts in Eastern Europe and Worldwide, and in frightening the Soviets (who rightfully saw it as an effort to promote internal political change in the Soviet Union itself).

[AROCES 2]

How is your opinion that they WANT us there any better then my opinion that they don't? You going to quote a few news articles saying they love us? And then I can quote a few saying they don't. The fact is they are both opinions, and yours is no better then mine, so get your head out of the clouds. As long as you have the right to speak your mind, so do I.

Not changing anything, just adding something

Sorry Tiggs, not flaming at all in what I just said, its a fact.

Us being still in Iraq and not being chased out is not an opinion. It a reality that is not favorable to what you been hoping for.

[Leonardo 10,408]

First world trade center attack happened on Clinton's watch, that says a lot! The building survived and he most certainly did fail.

And don't go trying to act like there is really nothing to worry about then because nothing happend prior to 9/11.

Did Clinton pursue Al Qaeda? NO! For Clinton misread the terrorist and downplayed the attack, you and Clinton probably were afraid that you will make them more angry.

See, learn to throw in all the facts.

The first WTC bombing in 1993 was in planning since at least 1991 and, as far as I can tell, none of the conspirators were members of al-Qaeda. Ramzi Yousef's (one of the conspirators) uncle was, and Yousef got financial support from him, but the conspirators were introduced by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was accused of being the leader of a group called al-Gama'a al Islamiyya. This group was not then affiliated to, allied with or associated with al-Qaeda (they are rumored to have formed an alliance with al-Qaeda post 2003.) Most of this information is readily available on Wiki.

Clinton would not have 'pursued' al-Qaeda for the 1993 WTC bombing due to the simple fact they weren't involved.

[Godsnmbr1 12]

Us being still in Iraq and not being chased out is not an opinion. It a reality that is not favorable to what you been hoping for.

Alright AROCES, why don't you fly over to Baghdad and take a walk around town? Let's see how much love and affection the Iraqis will show you then, eh? \

I can't believe that there are still people saying the Iraqi people actually wanted us to invade.

[*Quinn* 3]

First world trade center attack happened on Clinton's watch, that says a lot! The building survived and he most certainly did fail.

And don't go trying to act like there is really nothing to worry about then because nothing happend prior to 9/11.

Did Clinton pursue Al Qaeda? NO! For Clinton misread the terrorist and downplayed the attack, you and Clinton probably were afraid that you will make them more angry.

See, learn to throw in all the facts.

So now you switch things over to Clinton? For what purpose? If it's because you think I'm a fan of the Clinton's you are mistaken.

It's a joke to have 9/11 happen on Bush's watch and then act like he's doing a wonderful job protecting the United States simply because another terrorist attack hasn't happened on U.S. soil since then.

How low a standard shall we set for Bush in order to praise him?

He's an awful President. He had an agenda to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power well before 9/11 took place. He then used 9/11 as a reason to launch his war in Iraq. It shouldn't be that hard for people to see right through that part of things.

More shocking is his seeming disinterest in Osama Bin Laden ever since the attack happened. He's had 7-8 years to find the man and nothing. Oh, but he sure as hell made certain he invaded Iraq afterwards to get rid of Saddam Hussein as if Hussein was the reason for 9/11. It makes no sense.

George & company wanted 9/11 to take place - they knew it would take something like that to get the backing of people for their plans in Iraq. PNAC practically tells us as much.

[ravergirl 7]

Alright. I'm just gonna stand back and wait until someone can tell you how wrong you are more eloquently then I can.

someone may be able to speak eloquently, but that doesn't make them right. I agree with this. I think it will embolden foreign terrorists and anger domestic ones.

[Incorrigible1 11]

Joe Biden is a Republican plant!

[SRCivic98 0]

First of all let me start off by saying that I don't think neither man or woman is really truly ready to be in the white house. Why? Because they're coming in after another president's policies and ideas have failed on numerous accounts. Knowing that the American people are watching them and seeing if they can actually help fix or tighten up those loosen ends. They also realize that the American people may turn on them in a heart beat if they make a single mistake. Second of all, 9/11/01 was a tragic day all Americans here in the USA and for our allies as well. That day honestly opened our eyes to the fact that we're not as invulenerable about people thing we are. So we've got to step up our game a little bit and boost up our security systems where we can...yes it's true you can't fix every opened crack in the dam because the water will find a way to get through but at least you can slow it down. For those that don't understand that, it means that we can boost our security systems, checks, watch everything that everyone is doing around us, but nothing or no one is truly safe. Third: Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all those other countries across seas now realize that there is someone out there who does care and won't tolerate a leader that harms their own people for personal gain or pleasure. No, they understand now that the USA is a state of freedom and rights that wishes to show it to the rest of the world and there are others out there that don't really like us because of those rights and freedoms that we have here in this great country. So what do they do? They do the only thing they've been taught to do, they destroy something that is different and not like them. Fourth: For those of you who believe that everything is falling apart I say, keep your head and take care of what you can. We'll get through this, we always have. Amercians are known for stepping back up after getting knocked down. Why, because we're not the type of people that just give up and go away peacefully. We'll get through this financial crisis and credit crunch and if we go into a depression/recession, then we'll come back from it too, we have before and we will again. So stay strong america and join hands in the hopes and dreams and prayers that we'll be okay and someday we're all live the way that we were meant to...free...