you think?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/[url]

Say what you want to about the war, but any excuse to build a kickass swimming pool like that in the middle of the desert is cool with me.

I'm at said base with the pool...ya, it is a pretty kick ass pool

It's really hard to read stuff like that. 1 billion dollars could go along way to save the coast, natural habitat, and defend us from hurricanes. What good is it to protect abroad if you're not protecting at home?

Thank you.

Who needs a gulf coast, wetlands, etc when you've got enormous swimming pools in the desert?

You people lack vision.

We'll be in Iraq for a while, get use to it. Also how many terrorist attacks have taken place on US soil since 9/11 and deployments to the middle east...ZERO... I'd say that's protecting the US

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying what good is protecting us over there if we don't show the same commitment here. A fraction of the base cost could be used to redistribute the Mississippi River and rebuild and protect us (not to mention one of the largest natural habitats in the US) at the same time.

We could use that money to address the Canadian menace once and for all. Don't you people realize there's millions of Canadians poised RIGHT AT OUR NORTHERN BORDER??????

I've been having a feeling that Radcliffe was plotting something.

No.

I can't stand it when people use this logic. There's no evidence to back this up yet people seem to fall for this nonsense.

You mean other than the total absence of a follow-up attack?

Yeah, but there's no specific evidence that fighting in Iraq is the reason for this. A lot of other stuff has been done in the past 4 years that would seem to have a much more direct link to domestic terror prevention, like the overhaul of various agencies, the creation of Homeland Security, and generally taking terrorist threats more seriously.

You say this as if we've been attacked every year since 9/11 and now all of a sudden haven't been attacked for 4 years.

That's where you get to the skewed priorities of this administration.

Intervention is good in other people's countries, but not in our own states or economies.

BUT, the Democratic argument is the exact opposite. I like what you say about a "fraction of the cost." Let's get someone up there who knows how to make protection at home and abroad the same priority.

(and, I don't think that's a Democrat right now)

It's evidence nonetheless. The logic that Brainiac-I-failed-community-college-chemistry-OPA disdains reasons that we took the fight overseas and diverted terrorist attention and resources--drawing them out in the open where they can be confronted and destroyed, leading to a significantly decreased ability to coordinate and execute attacks on US soil.

There is a clear cause and a clear effect. You may disgaree over the relationship between the two, but as "evidence" and "logic", it presents a reasonable (i.e. logical) argument.

Are you trying to put aFreshStart4Me out of a job?