[Will]

Ok, most of the rest of the points are highly inflamatory, and don't deal with the issues much, if at all. So I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of it.

And AT, I hold both the Republican and Democratic parties in utter contempt. It's just I usually have less of a problem with Democrats than I do with Republicans, since the idealogical community that I despise the most in the US (conservative Evangelical Christians, eg. those who love their faith so much they want everyone else to have that faith too... or else) tends to overwhelmingly go Republican, and they determine some of their more distasteful (in my view) policies. Most of the Republicans I know who don't put the "neo-conservative" labels on themselves would fit far better in the Libertarian Party, since the Republican leadership has unfortunately been taken over by the so-called neo-conservative elements.

Pretty much my view on the entire military aspect of the candidates is that Kerry has some experience commanding a very small number of soldiers (five at a time, I believe), and none commanding any significant number. Bush has the three and a half years he got as President, and I think he botched most of it.

Afghanistan was pretty much a necessity any way you look at it, he would have been crucified if there wasn't swift action there. Then I think there are two ways to look at Iraq: either it was chosen over other viable targets (such as N. Korea) because there were already other factors aiding in the war attempt (trouble with UN sanctions) as well as it's location close to other Middle-eastern states where it was suspected terrorists were harbored; or, it was chosen because it was a slightly easier target (again because of UN sanctions and the demolishment of the Iraqi military in Gulf War I), control over oil (auto-magically gain the support of probably 25% of the country there), personal grudge over the assasination plot against Daddy, or any of the other conspiracy theories that have floated around. While the conspiracy theory points ARE possible, the first option would have to be the primary reason for any sane person.

So, in my view, immediately after invading Afghanistan, the talk of invading Iraq that came up was Bush mistake #1. Everything before that was pretty much auto-pilot, it would have happened no matter who was President (my opinion, but I don't see how anyone could think differently). The military should have focused on cleaning out Afghanistan and ensuring a stable new government, then moved on to the next target.

Bush mistake #2 was not listening to his military advisors, who knew what they were doing, and sending fewer troops than recommended into Iraq. While the neutralization of Iraq was still swift, it could have gone smoother, and a larger force would have been able to prevent the next mistake...

With Bush mistake #3 being again not listening to his military advisors, and keeping an insufficient police force in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco (I can't see how anyone would think that Bush's little stunt of showing up on the carrier was a smart move, especially considering that it was premature). There were a lot of analogies used for the search for weapons about how Iraq was about the size of California, making searching the entire country difficult. Well, to borrow from that, imagine going into California, and removing all the local police, the CHP, the National Guard, etc., in the state, and replacing them with a vastly smaller force of "police troops", who patrolled mostly in the major cities and the routes between them. What would happen to California then? Well, very quickly, gangs would gain control of large parts of the cities, and small Groups of bandits would have free reign over the rural areas. Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

So, Bush has consistently overestimated the abilities of his armies, and consistently underestimated the abilities of his opponents, on his opponents' home ground. With that record, you will forgive me if I do not want to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes, I'll take chances with someone else.