Full Version: Who would the terrorists like to see win?
QUOTE
Just who had the clout to send the family out of the country when all other flights were grounded, hmmmm?
Probably the same people who cleared the flights for all the emergency workers to come into New York. Maybe all the commercial and most private flights were grounded but there was still planes in the air. I'm with Hugo on this one, even if there wasn't any specific threats on the Bin Laden family, I would rather them be safe. If something were to happen to them it would have made America look like a vindictive gun toting mob.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 17 2004, 05:24 PM)
Who would the terrorists like to see win?
I didn't vote! While I have serious doubts about Kerry's free-for-all campaign rhetoric promising to fix what he claims are all the wrongs of the Bush administration. IMO it doesn't matter what man/woman or party affiliation is in power...the AMERICANS are still the NUMBER ONE enemy.
IMO, the above rhetoric is wishful thinking, simplistic, and leads me to believe that Mr. Kerry, if elected, had better be proficient in magic or exorcism if he intends to keep his pledge about righting all the wrongs in Iraq, the WOT, and diplomacy abroad...oh yes, and our domestic agenda.
I didn't vote! While I have serious doubts about Kerry's free-for-all campaign rhetoric promising to fix what he claims are all the wrongs of the Bush administration. IMO it doesn't matter what man/woman or party affiliation is in power...the AMERICANS are still the NUMBER ONE enemy.
QUOTE
It might be worth noting that G.W. Bush's daddy, when he was director of the C.I.A. was acquainted with Osama bin Laden, who received training from the C.I.A. to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. As a child of an oil-wealthy Saudi, it is entirely likely that Osama and the Bush family were acquainted with each other on a business level as well.
It might be that Osama bin Laden and the Bushes have been carrying on a grudge match for years. OBL probably knows Bush well.
If electing Kerry meant that this war would be less of a personal nature than it is under G.W. Bush, it might be to everyone's benefit to have Kerry in office. He might be more objective, and objectivity seems to be in short supply these days. Paladin Elspeth
It might be that Osama bin Laden and the Bushes have been carrying on a grudge match for years. OBL probably knows Bush well.
If electing Kerry meant that this war would be less of a personal nature than it is under G.W. Bush, it might be to everyone's benefit to have Kerry in office. He might be more objective, and objectivity seems to be in short supply these days. Paladin Elspeth
IMO, the above rhetoric is wishful thinking, simplistic, and leads me to believe that Mr. Kerry, if elected, had better be proficient in magic or exorcism if he intends to keep his pledge about righting all the wrongs in Iraq, the WOT, and diplomacy abroad...oh yes, and our domestic agenda.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many non-Kerry supporters would be swayed by rhetoric like, I'm running for President because I think I can do a pretty good job. I think I'd be about as good as the current President in righting all the wrongs in Iraq. I'd do a fair to middlin' job fighting the War on Terror, maybe even as good a job as President Bush does, and I'd probably not alienate any more foreign leaders than the current President has--shucks, they might even like me as much!
What kind of rhetoric would YOU use in order to be elected President?
QUOTE
So, my answer to the question is: A yellow chicken that runs when the sky comes falling down. IMO neither Bush or Kerry are yellow chickens!
I agree with you 100% on this one.
QUOTE(hugo)
You don't have to go to a hospital for dialysis, you have to get the neccesary equipment to your hideout.
There was a satellite photo publicized on TV today that showed a tall guy surrounded by shorter guys going into a medical facility in Pakistan. And the commentator said it was thought to be....(drum roll)....OSAMA BIN LADEN!
I haven't lived in a cave, so I couldn't say if they are retrofitted with electrical outlets for hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis consists of several large bags of dialysate, and it doesn't require electricity the way that hemodialysis machines do.
In any case, do ya think that maybe it would be a little conspicuous hauling the dialysis supplies away on a donkey, or maybe taking a generator into the mountains? Why don't we have this guy, if Bush is the veritable Scourge of Terrorists everywhere?
I agree with Desert Resident: Neither candidate would be the terrorists' friend.
And, as AuthorMusician said before, unless you poll the terrorists, you cannot say that one would be favored over the other.
Hmm, interesting. I just read this report from Reuters.com.
If this can be believed, it seems they prefer Bush. Not saying that the reasons they give are valid or anything, just thought it was interesting, given the topic of this debate.
QUOTE
A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.
In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.
"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.
In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.
"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.
QUOTE
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
If this can be believed, it seems they prefer Bush. Not saying that the reasons they give are valid or anything, just thought it was interesting, given the topic of this debate.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Mar 17 2004, 09:15 PM)
If this can be believed, it seems they prefer Bush. Not saying that the reasons they give are valid or anything, just thought it was interesting, given the topic of this debate.
Need I state the obvious? If I were a member of an anti-American terrorist organization, I would publicly endorse the candidate I would hope to LOSE.
I think the answer here would depend a lot on which terrorist one were asking. If it's a terrorist who fears American hegemony, but believes that there is hope for their legitimate concerns to be addressed politically and diplomatically, then I suspect s/he would lean toward Kerry (though, like many American Kerry-leaners, only as the lesser of two evils).
If it's a terrorist of a more Trotskyite bent, who believes that there are no immediate solutions to their concerns except through increasing chaos, s/he would favor a militarist America which would inspire more unrest, swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations, and fostering more violence. For this breed of terrorist, Bush would be the clear choice.
Frankly, of those in power among terrorist groups, I fear there are probably more of the latter - so I had to vote "Bush".
If it's a terrorist of a more Trotskyite bent, who believes that there are no immediate solutions to their concerns except through increasing chaos, s/he would favor a militarist America which would inspire more unrest, swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations, and fostering more violence. For this breed of terrorist, Bush would be the clear choice.
Frankly, of those in power among terrorist groups, I fear there are probably more of the latter - so I had to vote "Bush".
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 17 2004, 11:01 PM)
I think the answer here would depend a lot on which terrorist one were asking. If it's a terrorist who fears American hegemony, but believes that there is hope for their legitimate concerns to be addressed politically and diplomatically, then I suspect s/he would lean toward Kerry (though, like many American Kerry-leaners, only as the lesser of two evils).
If it's a terrorist of a more Trotskyite bent, who believes that there are no immediate solutions to their concerns except through increasing chaos, s/he would favor a militarist America which would inspire more unrest, swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations, and fostering more violence. For this breed of terrorist, Bush would be the clear choice.
Frankly, of those in power among terrorist groups, I fear there are probably more of the latter - so I had to vote "Bush".
If it's a terrorist of a more Trotskyite bent, who believes that there are no immediate solutions to their concerns except through increasing chaos, s/he would favor a militarist America which would inspire more unrest, swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations, and fostering more violence. For this breed of terrorist, Bush would be the clear choice.
Frankly, of those in power among terrorist groups, I fear there are probably more of the latter - so I had to vote "Bush".
Ok Wertz, is this the political terrorist or the trotskyite? I offer it more for those that may not have taken the time to understand that war was declared specifically on America in 1998. If anyone is interested in the '96 Fatwah, here's the link:1996 Fatwa
And here is text of 98 Fatwa:
QUOTE
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998
Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
The '96 Fatwa is even more interesting if you have the patience! If not check with your pundit of choice; "Appeaser" or "Defender"! I use these terms because this is not a political war that has been declared on us.
QUOTE
QUOTE
If this can be believed, it seems they prefer Bush. Not saying that the reasons they give are valid or anything, just thought it was interesting, given the topic of this debate.
Need I state the obvious? If I were a member of an anti-American terrorist organization, I would publicly endorse the candidate I would hope to LOSE.
Just a thought. It is the policies of George Bush that cause the many divisions on all levels globally. His style of diplomacy has alienated many former allies to one degree or another. Many of his foreign supporters are facing heavy criticism from their own populations. So wouldn't it make a lot of sense that terrorists would prefer Bush. I am not saying Kerry's approach would be more sensible than Bush's, merely that Bush now draws heavy anger over anything he does now. While I am myself not a fan of Dubya's everything he now does has some "darker" and "sinister" alterior motive( same as Republicans did to Clinton. Y'know as you sow and all that).
Anything he does is now decisive+10. There will be future attacks. Ones that will leave no choice but a harsh response. Probably somewhere across someone elses border. A sinister mind would make sure the target was in a country sure to draw serious contention if we need to respond and they deny us access. George couldn't back down. He would have to DO whatever was necessary or he looks false. He will do as he has said. Inevitably there will be backlash. Protests and marches and even more separation between us and now increasingly former allies. Even our newer allies from the former soviet union will feel the bite because their immediate neighbors are the ones they have to live with. They will need good relations for strong economies and that often changes the strength of political willpower. Here in America the 2 parties and their now frothing supporters will become even more hypercritical. Bush's environmental problems now caused the extinction of the dinosaur and Kerry was behind the sack of Rome because he voted against new gladiuses for the troops.
Give me another hour and I'll come up with why Kerry would be equally disastrous as the winner.
NONE of it matters. Al Quaeda and whoever comes next will always find a way to exploit any situation.
Why?
Because it is all they think about. Night and Day 365 days a year. Just like wacko conspiracy theorists they will mull over the possible permutations endlessly.
They will find a way. There is always a weakness always something exploitable.
Such as the divisive vitriol of the 2 parties.
This is such an interesting thread. Never thought it'd lead into anything worthwhile, but that just shows how wrong I can be.
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?
I can't say. Terrorism is a complex thing needing more than simplistic reasoning to understand. I frankly can't understand it, and so my little mind tends toward notions of those people must be crazy.
Okay, maybe they are. But how crazy are we? And is our leadership crazy? Would JFK be less crazy than GWB? Or more crazy?
Eh, I don't know. I like JFK more than GWB, but I wouldn't want to be in the same room drinking beer and listening to blues with either of those dudes. Gives me the willies just to think about such a scene.
Except I could talk guitar with JFK, so he must be a tough guy on those terrorists like GWB is supposed to be. Lots of your blood and guts, eh? JFK has some flesh in that. GWB doesn't.
But GWB has tried hard -- really very hard -- to come to grips with terrorism. It's a tough thing, perhaps too tough for him. It's too tough for me, and I know that for sure.
So do the terrorists fear or welcome GWB's take on terrorism?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office.
Guess that might mean the terrorists want more of the same
?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?
I can't say. Terrorism is a complex thing needing more than simplistic reasoning to understand. I frankly can't understand it, and so my little mind tends toward notions of those people must be crazy.
Okay, maybe they are. But how crazy are we? And is our leadership crazy? Would JFK be less crazy than GWB? Or more crazy?
Eh, I don't know. I like JFK more than GWB, but I wouldn't want to be in the same room drinking beer and listening to blues with either of those dudes. Gives me the willies just to think about such a scene.
Except I could talk guitar with JFK, so he must be a tough guy on those terrorists like GWB is supposed to be. Lots of your blood and guts, eh? JFK has some flesh in that. GWB doesn't.
But GWB has tried hard -- really very hard -- to come to grips with terrorism. It's a tough thing, perhaps too tough for him. It's too tough for me, and I know that for sure.
So do the terrorists fear or welcome GWB's take on terrorism?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office.
Guess that might mean the terrorists want more of the same
?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Mar 18 2004, 06:20 AM)
This is such an interesting thread. Never thought it'd lead into anything worthwhile, but that just shows how wrong I can be.
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?
I can't say. Terrorism is a complex thing needing more than simplistic reasoning to understand. I frankly can't understand it, and so my little mind tends toward notions of those people must be crazy.
Okay, maybe they are. But how crazy are we? And is our leadership crazy? Would JFK be less crazy than GWB? Or more crazy?
Eh, I don't know. I like JFK more than GWB, but I wouldn't want to be in the same room drinking beer and listening to blues with either of those dudes. Gives me the willies just to think about such a scene.
Except I could talk guitar with JFK, so he must be a tough guy on those terrorists like GWB is supposed to be. Lots of your blood and guts, eh? JFK has some flesh in that. GWB doesn't.
But GWB has tried hard -- really very hard -- to come to grips with terrorism. It's a tough thing, perhaps too tough for him. It's too tough for me, and I know that for sure.
So do the terrorists fear or welcome GWB's take on terrorism?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office.
Guess that might mean the terrorists want more of the same
?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?
I can't say. Terrorism is a complex thing needing more than simplistic reasoning to understand. I frankly can't understand it, and so my little mind tends toward notions of those people must be crazy.
Okay, maybe they are. But how crazy are we? And is our leadership crazy? Would JFK be less crazy than GWB? Or more crazy?
Eh, I don't know. I like JFK more than GWB, but I wouldn't want to be in the same room drinking beer and listening to blues with either of those dudes. Gives me the willies just to think about such a scene.
Except I could talk guitar with JFK, so he must be a tough guy on those terrorists like GWB is supposed to be. Lots of your blood and guts, eh? JFK has some flesh in that. GWB doesn't.
But GWB has tried hard -- really very hard -- to come to grips with terrorism. It's a tough thing, perhaps too tough for him. It's too tough for me, and I know that for sure.
So do the terrorists fear or welcome GWB's take on terrorism?
It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office.
Guess that might mean the terrorists want more of the same
?
It seems to me we should be taking heart by the absence of another attack here since 9/11. And also by the increasing carnage in Iraq. That tells me that the terror network is on the defensive. They actually appear more deperate every day in Iraq. They see freedom growing and a new and democratic govt on the horizon and that is a death-knell for them.
The only thing that can build on this momentum is a continuing of our current efforts. Shore up our own borders and promote freedom in the Gulf and ME. And the only one willing to take that route, no matter how loud the leftists scream, is GWB.
Kerry wont get in bed with terrorists but he wont forcefully remove them from our house either. He doesnt have the fortitude to take on the task. His latest "I voted for the $87 billion to support the troops before I voted against it" gem is quite telling.
We will continue to fight the evil in this world, no matter where it's found. Eventually the rest of the God-fearing world will join us in that fight. Many have already. I wouldn't trust John Kerry to lead that fight in a million years.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 17 2004, 03:14 PM)
I cannot understand the half-dozen or so people who have posted here who feel this thread is: "divisive", " .... to create a wedge between the people considering voting for Kerry and Kerry.", "this inept attempt at going to any lengths to scare the public is unwarranted." " this poll is in poor taste." "not one person on this board has a freaking clue what a terrorist wants"
IMO, this is a question that asks for a simple opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Why are these posters making much ado about nothing???
1SG
IMO, this is a question that asks for a simple opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Why are these posters making much ado about nothing???
1SG
Because on this debate forum, we like to substantiate debates with facts, figures, and evidence. This topic cannot be debated in an intelligent manner because all of the posts are OPINIONS and there aren't any facts to prove exactly what a terrorist might be thinking. We can speculate and we can guess, but the way the topic is worded, no one can answer the question while providing evidence to back up his or her statement. That's why many of us think this particular "debate" is not acutally a debate about the topic, but a debate about the validity of everyone's opinion. (Mods - don't trounce me, I'm just explaining to him why some of us are "making much ado" about "nothing", not publicly suggesting that you do anything differently.)
QUOTE(NiteGuy)
The poll, as written, (and any ensuing elections in the US) accomplishes nothing, because the terrorists aren't voting.
How do we know that terrorists aren't voting?
LOL maybe there are terrorists among us!
edited to add:
If any of you are terrorists, please PM me, I have some questions for ya.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 18 2004, 12:31 PM)
Kerry wont get in bed with terrorists but he wont forcefully remove them from our house either. He doesnt have the fortitude to take on the task.
I asked this before, and nobody answered, so I am forced to repeat myself:
What would lead you to make such a comment? What has led you to believe that kerry would be any softer on terrorists than Bush was? Has he made comments or statements, given any indication that he would go easier on terrorists? Given his record, is there anything at all that would make you believe he does not have the 'fortitude' to take on terrorists?
Or is this just a standard republican assumption of a democrat? I'm just curious, because nobody seems willing or able to justify any of these claims of weakness on the part of Kerry.
QUOTE
If I were a terrorist I would prefer that Bush win. Hes not had the best diplomacy with traditional allies, his militarism has inflamed passions and probably recruited more terrorists, he has a certain most-hated-name recognition that is good for rallying against (similar to Hillary and the GOP).
I agree with this statement. I believe Bush has actually increased hostile tension against the U.S. (Unbelievably how one guy can influence people in many ways).
The way we went to war in Iraq has not helped the situation but made it worse. Its just too obviously for nobody to see.
Are we more aware of terrorists striking us now? Of course, 9/11 changes our attitude. Terrorists love to rally around something to get together to cause havoc and destruction on people. I don't believe that will change whether Bush or Kerry is the President. These guys just don't plain like the US or any country aligned with us. Nothing will change their minds.
Even though this thread is decisively not a debate but rather a discussion, thought I'd poke around online ME newspapers. Interesting editorial from Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Editorial 03/18/04
This goes to the so-called Bush Doctrine of aggressive pursuit of terrorists. Seems the aggression could now be characterized as bull-headedness and a strong resistance to change methods.
Could this be encouraging the terrorists? The editorial is asking for a more cooperative approach to the war on terror in order to more effectively fight it.
Yep, I agree. Kerry will likely go that way if elected. So, maybe terrorists don't want him creating peace? Maybe they like a shot 'em up cowboy in office? It's speculation, but thought it was interesting to read an ME opinion on the issue.
Saudi Editorial 03/18/04
This goes to the so-called Bush Doctrine of aggressive pursuit of terrorists. Seems the aggression could now be characterized as bull-headedness and a strong resistance to change methods.
Could this be encouraging the terrorists? The editorial is asking for a more cooperative approach to the war on terror in order to more effectively fight it.
Yep, I agree. Kerry will likely go that way if elected. So, maybe terrorists don't want him creating peace? Maybe they like a shot 'em up cowboy in office? It's speculation, but thought it was interesting to read an ME opinion on the issue.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 17 2004, 10:10 PM)
[
You don't have to go to a hospital for dialysis, you have to get the neccesary equipment to your hideout.
There was a satellite photo publicized on TV today that showed a tall guy surrounded by shorter guys going into a medical facility in Pakistan. And the commentator said it was thought to be....(drum roll)....OSAMA BIN LADEN!
I haven't lived in a cave, so I couldn't say if they are retrofitted with electrical outlets for hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis consists of several large bags of dialysate, and it doesn't require electricity the way that hemodialysis machines do.
In any case, do ya think that maybe it would be a little conspicuous hauling the dialysis supplies away on a donkey, or maybe taking a generator into the mountains? Why don't we have this guy, if Bush is the veritable Scourge of Terrorists everywhere?
QUOTE(hugo)
You don't have to go to a hospital for dialysis, you have to get the neccesary equipment to your hideout.
There was a satellite photo publicized on TV today that showed a tall guy surrounded by shorter guys going into a medical facility in Pakistan. And the commentator said it was thought to be....(drum roll)....OSAMA BIN LADEN!
I haven't lived in a cave, so I couldn't say if they are retrofitted with electrical outlets for hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis consists of several large bags of dialysate, and it doesn't require electricity the way that hemodialysis machines do.
In any case, do ya think that maybe it would be a little conspicuous hauling the dialysis supplies away on a donkey, or maybe taking a generator into the mountains? Why don't we have this guy, if Bush is the veritable Scourge of Terrorists everywhere?
You can't win a debate with conspiracy theorists; the Earth is flat, the moon landing never happened, and Osama and George are exchanging Christmas cards.
Now, back in the real world: The reason for Osama's hatred of the US is our presence in the Middle East. Osama was our ally before the 1st Gulf War. The bombings in Spain and the conciliatory words toward the new Spanish government show that remains a goal of Al-Queda. Nothing can anger Al-Queda worse than the neo-con agenda.
"...if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election."
--- Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1748EST0756.DTL
The loopy logic of the right-wing strikes again. It doesn't surprise me that the GOP is stooping to scare tactics in their desperate attempt to keep Shrub large and in charge. I'm only mildly surprised how easily some posters have swallowed this hook, line and sinker.
I reinterate: unless someone is polling actual terrorists how can any result be anythihg more than a cross between a vague hunch and a wild guess?
And to think; only eight more months of this kind of drivel. No wonder so many Americans have dropped out of voting. Maybe that's the Republican plan. Bore everyone into insensibility and then steal another election.
--- Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1748EST0756.DTL
The loopy logic of the right-wing strikes again. It doesn't surprise me that the GOP is stooping to scare tactics in their desperate attempt to keep Shrub large and in charge. I'm only mildly surprised how easily some posters have swallowed this hook, line and sinker.
I reinterate: unless someone is polling actual terrorists how can any result be anythihg more than a cross between a vague hunch and a wild guess?
And to think; only eight more months of this kind of drivel. No wonder so many Americans have dropped out of voting. Maybe that's the Republican plan. Bore everyone into insensibility and then steal another election.
Hugo
Now, back in the real world: The reason for Osama's hatred of the US is our presence in the Middle East
So pray tell why are we in the Middle East? Is it OIL? Is it Democracy for those poor Arab nations.
Why should we be concerned about poking our noise in the Middle East.
It is like a hornets nest. Why stir them up. If you have run into a hornets nest, guess who is going to get hurt. You kill one hundred there are that many more that keep coming after you.
QUOTE
Now, back in the real world: The reason for Osama's hatred of the US is our presence in the Middle East
So pray tell why are we in the Middle East? Is it OIL? Is it Democracy for those poor Arab nations.
Why should we be concerned about poking our noise in the Middle East.
It is like a hornets nest. Why stir them up. If you have run into a hornets nest, guess who is going to get hurt. You kill one hundred there are that many more that keep coming after you.
I'll have to agree with you on that, Hugo: nothing can anger many people worse than the neo-con agenda, especially us pissants at the bottom of the economic food chain. And that has nothing to do with terrorists as far as most of us are concerned.
But tell me something: If I am such a conspiracy theorist as you imply, why would I ever endorse one Skull-and-Bonesman over another? Could it be that maybe I figure Bush's policies stink when it comes to our country's well-being? So he knows how to spend a lot of money and make war on a country that didn't attack us. Big whup. If anybody has demonstrated policies worthy of the Flat Earth Society, it is George W. Bush.
Ya think? Gee, that sounds like what I said about terrorists hating any American President who maintains an alliance with Israel.
Really? I think I said that in this thread, too, only I said that the CIA trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. It was in there with all of my "conspiracy theories" about George Herbert Walker Bush being Director of the CIA, remember? If George Walker Bush doesn't know bin Laden personally, I think George Herbert Walker Bush knew plenty about him, and might have even exchanged communications with bin Laden in his eagerness to fight Communism.
It looks to me like previous Republican administrations trained these guys and dealt with them (Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, respectively), and it came back to bite us all in the nether regions. What we (as a country) have sown by supporting subversion of the Communist system, we are reaping now for being seen as the biggest oppressors left standing. I'm not saying these guys are necessarily right, but they do make a valid point every now and then. And some time ago, they formed the conclusion that the only way to get the world's attention is to kill a bunch of people.
As you said, the terrorist organizations are rational in their war making. At least as rational as a warmonger can be.
But you still cannot attribute to Kerry any less vigorous an abhorrence of terrorist violence than you can to George W. Bush.
But tell me something: If I am such a conspiracy theorist as you imply, why would I ever endorse one Skull-and-Bonesman over another? Could it be that maybe I figure Bush's policies stink when it comes to our country's well-being? So he knows how to spend a lot of money and make war on a country that didn't attack us. Big whup. If anybody has demonstrated policies worthy of the Flat Earth Society, it is George W. Bush.
QUOTE
Now, back in the real world: The reason for Osama's hatred of the US is our presence in the Middle East.
Ya think? Gee, that sounds like what I said about terrorists hating any American President who maintains an alliance with Israel.
QUOTE
Osama was our ally before the 1st Gulf War.
Really? I think I said that in this thread, too, only I said that the CIA trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. It was in there with all of my "conspiracy theories" about George Herbert Walker Bush being Director of the CIA, remember? If George Walker Bush doesn't know bin Laden personally, I think George Herbert Walker Bush knew plenty about him, and might have even exchanged communications with bin Laden in his eagerness to fight Communism.
It looks to me like previous Republican administrations trained these guys and dealt with them (Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, respectively), and it came back to bite us all in the nether regions. What we (as a country) have sown by supporting subversion of the Communist system, we are reaping now for being seen as the biggest oppressors left standing. I'm not saying these guys are necessarily right, but they do make a valid point every now and then. And some time ago, they formed the conclusion that the only way to get the world's attention is to kill a bunch of people.
As you said, the terrorist organizations are rational in their war making. At least as rational as a warmonger can be.
But you still cannot attribute to Kerry any less vigorous an abhorrence of terrorist violence than you can to George W. Bush.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 18 2004, 10:14 AM)
But you still cannot attribute to Kerry any less vigorous an abhorrence of terrorist violence than you can to George W. Bush.
No, I cannot.Let me quote myself.
QUOTE
Yes, Al-Queda would love see to Bush and Blair go down to defeat. More for propaganda purposes than anything else. I wonder if they have an operation planned in the US for this October or early November? I do not see Kerry being soft on Al-Queda, after 9/11 no American President would be.
I think besides the Osama and Christmas card exchange we agree on quite a bit here. Unlike, the Spanish election, the American election will not noticeably effect the war on Al-Queda. I am simpy arguing, that mainly for propaganda purposes, though partially because Kerry is less likely than Bush to push America's presence in the Middle East, that Kerry is preferable to Bush in Al-Queda's eyes.
I think the reason for the passion on this issue is the assumption that whoever Al-Queda prefers should make a difference to the American voter. It should not. It seems quite logical to me that Al-Queda would love to claim they brought down GW. Even if us Americans might be voting based on healthcare, the economy, social security or many other issues.
christopher
"Just a thought. It is the policies of George Bush that cause the many divisions on all levels globally. His style of diplomacy has alienated many former allies to one degree or another. Many of his foreign supporters are facing heavy criticism from their own populations. So wouldn't it make a lot of sense that terrorists would prefer Bush. I am not saying Kerry's approach would be more sensible than Bush's, merely that Bush now draws heavy anger over anything he does now."
As I remember British, French and German newpaper editotrials were disparaging GWB as soon as he won the 2000 election, even before he took office. It's no wonder the populations of these countries are anti-Bush. However, speaking of just the WOT, Europe, North America, and much of Asia are working in a coordinated manner that was unheard of prior to the 9/11 massacres. Iraq has had little to no effect on WOT cooperation.
So, do the terrorists want to see an American President who is a proven fighter and leader in the WOT, or would they rather take their changes with a leader that looks to be in the same mold as his Democratic predecessor.
AuthorMusician
"It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?"
After a pretty extensive google search I have to agree that terrorist attacks have increased since the 9/11 massacres. However, just as 9/11 galvanized Americans and our allies into action against al-Qaeda, our world wide attacks on this umbrella organization and those who are aligned or support it has galvanized terrorists into reaction.
IMO, blaming GWB for these attacks turns the issue away from the real culpits. The terrorists themselves. The terrorists started it and they are now fighting for their lives.
perspective
"Because on this debate forum, we like to substantiate debates with facts, figures, and evidence. This topic cannot be debated in an intelligent manner because all of the posts are OPINIONS and there aren't any facts to prove exactly what a terrorist might be thinking."
True, the proper utilization of facts in the conduct of debate is not only desired, but an essential element. However we should also have true discourse, which is more the exchange of ideas and opinion, then just bare facts.
My opinion that Terrorists, world wide, would rather see Kerry elected, is based on the the successful pressure Bush has brought to bare on international terrorism since the 9/11 massacres. This is more then mere factless conjecture, but not just bare fact. It is a valid, reasoned opinion and should therefore be proper in any reasoned discourse.
1SG
"Just a thought. It is the policies of George Bush that cause the many divisions on all levels globally. His style of diplomacy has alienated many former allies to one degree or another. Many of his foreign supporters are facing heavy criticism from their own populations. So wouldn't it make a lot of sense that terrorists would prefer Bush. I am not saying Kerry's approach would be more sensible than Bush's, merely that Bush now draws heavy anger over anything he does now."
As I remember British, French and German newpaper editotrials were disparaging GWB as soon as he won the 2000 election, even before he took office. It's no wonder the populations of these countries are anti-Bush. However, speaking of just the WOT, Europe, North America, and much of Asia are working in a coordinated manner that was unheard of prior to the 9/11 massacres. Iraq has had little to no effect on WOT cooperation.
So, do the terrorists want to see an American President who is a proven fighter and leader in the WOT, or would they rather take their changes with a leader that looks to be in the same mold as his Democratic predecessor.
AuthorMusician
"It is obvious that, when we take a world view, terrorism has increased while GWB has been in office. Is that a cause/effect relationship?"
After a pretty extensive google search I have to agree that terrorist attacks have increased since the 9/11 massacres. However, just as 9/11 galvanized Americans and our allies into action against al-Qaeda, our world wide attacks on this umbrella organization and those who are aligned or support it has galvanized terrorists into reaction.
IMO, blaming GWB for these attacks turns the issue away from the real culpits. The terrorists themselves. The terrorists started it and they are now fighting for their lives.
perspective
"Because on this debate forum, we like to substantiate debates with facts, figures, and evidence. This topic cannot be debated in an intelligent manner because all of the posts are OPINIONS and there aren't any facts to prove exactly what a terrorist might be thinking."
True, the proper utilization of facts in the conduct of debate is not only desired, but an essential element. However we should also have true discourse, which is more the exchange of ideas and opinion, then just bare facts.
My opinion that Terrorists, world wide, would rather see Kerry elected, is based on the the successful pressure Bush has brought to bare on international terrorism since the 9/11 massacres. This is more then mere factless conjecture, but not just bare fact. It is a valid, reasoned opinion and should therefore be proper in any reasoned discourse.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 17 2004, 04:14 PM)
I agree with the majority of Americans in believing terrorists would rather see Kerry elected and Bush go down in flames. There is no doubt in my mind that most of "old Europe" feels the same way about Kerry.. None of them want a decisive American president. The Terrorists want a Clinton clone who will maybe look at the polls instread of leading the nation. The Europeans would rather an American president with Socialist views like their own. One who will not rock the boat and allow certain European nations the latitude of providing weapons to nations that support terrorism in exchange for Oil Contracts.
QUOTE
That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."
Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."
When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that - I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."
Guess Senator McCain didn't get the Republican talking points memo that Kerry is soft on defense and would weaken national security.
Or maybe he knows Americans are smart people and prefer to make their decisions without someone telling them what to think.
I'd be surprised if Al Quaida isn't trying to help fund Bush's campaign.
Terrorism can't beat a united front. They can fight, but they can't win. Their movements would be so limited, that they could neither get adequately funded or supplied.
But Bush is their saving grace. The guy that claimed "I'm a uniter, not a divider" has divided our country, the UN, and the world. Other than that, he's kept to his word.
Italy, Spain, and Poland have come out against the Iraq invasion with terms of "deceit" (Italy) and flat out bribery (Poland). The UN has been relegated to a simple side show because Bush decided WE were the UN. Now, I'm voting for a democrat for the first time in my life because I believe Bush is fricken nuts.
If Bush were to order our military to target suspected terrorist sites/activities to prevent our certain doom, the world would fall down laughing. If Iran purchased brand new nuclear technology from Pakistan and configured it to be deployable with the missiles that can reach our left coast, the world would be looking for Alan Funt's candid camera for a punch line if Bush decided to do something about it.
If Iranians got on the radio of a 747, said who they were, why they were there, and flew airplanes into our national treasures, the world would believe Bush. Of course, they'd still blame him. But, until then, no way-no how could he do anything about it and get any type of support.
Bush completely bankrupted our foreign policies. If foreign policy were a checking account, Bush couldn't write a check for a loaf of bread. Nobody will ever, ever believe him.
So, if Bush gets re-elected, the terrorist have 4 more years to further divide an already divided world. Everytime one strikes, the countries affected - including ours - will point to Bush and say "See what you did?".
If Kerry wins, the slate won't be wiped clean, but he'll have a chance for his actions to speak louder than words. With Bush, there is zero chance of that.
Terrorists need Bush's foreign policy skills to keep their momentum going.
Terrorism can't beat a united front. They can fight, but they can't win. Their movements would be so limited, that they could neither get adequately funded or supplied.
But Bush is their saving grace. The guy that claimed "I'm a uniter, not a divider" has divided our country, the UN, and the world. Other than that, he's kept to his word.
Italy, Spain, and Poland have come out against the Iraq invasion with terms of "deceit" (Italy) and flat out bribery (Poland). The UN has been relegated to a simple side show because Bush decided WE were the UN. Now, I'm voting for a democrat for the first time in my life because I believe Bush is fricken nuts.
If Bush were to order our military to target suspected terrorist sites/activities to prevent our certain doom, the world would fall down laughing. If Iran purchased brand new nuclear technology from Pakistan and configured it to be deployable with the missiles that can reach our left coast, the world would be looking for Alan Funt's candid camera for a punch line if Bush decided to do something about it.
If Iranians got on the radio of a 747, said who they were, why they were there, and flew airplanes into our national treasures, the world would believe Bush. Of course, they'd still blame him. But, until then, no way-no how could he do anything about it and get any type of support.
Bush completely bankrupted our foreign policies. If foreign policy were a checking account, Bush couldn't write a check for a loaf of bread. Nobody will ever, ever believe him.
So, if Bush gets re-elected, the terrorist have 4 more years to further divide an already divided world. Everytime one strikes, the countries affected - including ours - will point to Bush and say "See what you did?".
If Kerry wins, the slate won't be wiped clean, but he'll have a chance for his actions to speak louder than words. With Bush, there is zero chance of that.
Terrorists need Bush's foreign policy skills to keep their momentum going.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 18 2004, 11:58 AM)
[
That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
[i]Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
[i]Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
Quoting John McCain and referring to his Republican status, is akin to quoting that great black American Clarence Thomas.Neither represent the mainstream of their peers ideology.
QUOTE
Terrorism can't beat a united front. They can fight, but they can't win. Their movements would be so limited, that they could neither get adequately funded or supplied.
Yep, the world was pretty united about doing nothing to combat terrorism prior to 9/11. Seems like terrorists thrived despite this "unity".
A bit off topic, but
QUOTE
You mean the same John McCain who has a lifetime rating of 84 from the American Conservative Union? McCain may speak his mind, but his votes peg him as pretty darn mainstream Republican!
When you at McCain's 2001 and 2002 ACU scores you see he was more liberal than all but five Republican senators, two from Maine (might as well be Canada) one from Maryland and Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee. McCain is well to the left of most of the Republican Party who chose Bill Frist as their leader. Frist's scores 100 and 100. McCain's 78 and 68.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Mar 18 2004, 10:30 AM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 18 2004, 11:58 AM)
[
That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
[i]Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
[i]Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
Quoting John McCain and referring to his Republican status, is akin to quoting that great black American Clarence Thomas.Neither represent the mainstream of their peers ideology.
You mean the same John McCain who has a lifetime rating of 84 from the American Conservative Union?
McCain may speak his mind, but his votes peg him as pretty darn mainstream Republican!QUOTE
Yep, the world was pretty united about doing nothing to combat terrorism prior to 9/11. Seems like terrorists thrived despite this "unity".
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you really trying to say that the world pretty much did nothing about terrorism before 9/11? Heck that's not even true in our own country, let alone the world. The fact is that in our country, we simply lacked the collective will to step up the fight prior to 9/11. Clinton, for all people seem to want to rail against, did want to step up the fight. His attempts to do so (proposing a bill similar to the USA PATRIOT Act, focusing more on Bin Laden) were blocked by Congressional Republicans (and Democrats). In fact, Senator John Ashcroft was leading the way in blocking any bills that would, as he saw it, curtail any of our civil liberties.
Now, let me be clear as to what I mean. When I say "step up the fight," I mean taking it to a level of "war" instead of treating terrorism as simply criminal. I support the idea of treating terrorists as criminals. To declare a "war on terror" just gives these thugs more legitimacy than they deserve, in my eyes. This doesn't mean doing less to try and apprehend them, it's really more a matter of perception. By making this a "crusade," in a way we are giving people like bin Laden exactly what he wants - the perception that he is somehow a man to be reckoned with, important and with important things to say. In my mind, Osama is an anachronism - he is an angry old man whose idiotic ideas are centuries out of date.
I think Bush has been giving al Qaeda exactly what they want - a global playing field; a battle of ideologies. In that sense, even if Bush succeeds in killing bin Laden, our actions, placed into this context of ideological battle, will still be seen as provoking and legitimizing what really amounts to a gang of thugs with an impossible agenda.
I don't mean that terrorists support Bush, or that they would "vote" for him. It is likely (and very probable) that if Kerry becomes the president, he will continue the WOT in much the same way as Bush. I don't think this battle will end until the world unites in treating terrorists like Osama bin Laden as rotten murderers with a dated, worn-out ideology, because that is what they are.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 18 2004, 03:02 PM)
QUOTE
Yep, the world was pretty united about doing nothing to combat terrorism prior to 9/11. Seems like terrorists thrived despite this "unity".
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you really trying to say that the world pretty much did nothing about terrorism before 9/11? Heck that's not even true in our own country, let alone the world. The fact is that in our country, we simply lacked the collective will to step up the fight prior to 9/11. Clinton, for all people seem to want to rail against, did want to step up the fight. His attempts to do so (proposing a bill similar to the USA PATRIOT Act, focusing more on Bin Laden) were blocked by Congressional Republicans (and Democrats). In fact, Senator John Ashcroft was leading the way in blocking any bills that would, as he saw it, curtail any of our civil liberties.
So you agree with me that we did nothing effective against terrorism? I never said if Clinton or the Republicans in Congress were to blame. Al-Queda was acting practically unimpeded in Afghanistan and the world did nothing. There may have been partisan conflicts over the issue, but little effective action by any of the nations of the world who were united in apathy.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 18 2004, 05:58 PM)
So, do the terrorists want to see an American President who is a proven fighter and leader in the WOT, or would they rather take their changes with a leader that looks to be in the same mold as his Democratic predecessor.
I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave.
There is so much conjecture and assumption there it makes my head spin.
So I will ask for a third time, what makes you think Kerry would be any less fervent in his pursuit of the War on Terror than Bush? Has he made any statements, given any indication he intends to back off on the war on terror? has he shown that he is weak-hearted or unwilling to use military options?
Or is the entire thread based around the fact that democrats dont like republicans, and republicans dont like democrats? saying Keryy will be weak because "he is a Democrat and democrats are weak" is foolishness, it is debating by steriotype. One might as well say: "Bush will be fiscally conservative because he is republican, and republicans are fiscally conservative". We can see how well that steriotype worked out.
QUOTE
However, just as 9/11 galvanized Americans and our allies into action against al-Qaeda, our world wide attacks on this umbrella organization and those who are aligned or support it has galvanized terrorists into reaction. IMO, blaming GWB for these attacks turns the issue away from the real culpits. The terrorists themselves.
I am impressed by how you span the complete opposite of what you maintained earlier into meaning the exact same thing, that your personal favourite candidate could not be outdone.
So last page, when you claimed there were no terrorist attacks, it was all Bush's work and his responsability. Now that the opposite turns out to be true, now its all the Terrorists fault, and not Bush's responsability at all?
Riiiiight.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 18 2004, 02:25 PM)
I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave.
There is so much conjecture and assumption there it makes my head spin.
So I will ask for a third time, what makes you think Kerry would be any less fervent in his pursuit of the War on Terror than Bush? Has he made any statements, given any indication he intends to back off on the war on terror? has he shown that he is weak-hearted or unwilling to use military options?
There is so much conjecture and assumption there it makes my head spin.
So I will ask for a third time, what makes you think Kerry would be any less fervent in his pursuit of the War on Terror than Bush? Has he made any statements, given any indication he intends to back off on the war on terror? has he shown that he is weak-hearted or unwilling to use military options?
I think you haven't been answered on this, Vermillion, because there's no evidence of this.
In fact, one of my biggest beefs with Kerry is that he seems far less embracing of peaceful measures than Kucinich or Nader, or any Green that might run, for instance.
I agree with you -- this seems like a debate on stereotypes more than anything.
I’m assuming by “terrorists” you’re talking about Al-Qaeda. If you’re talking about every so called “terrorist” group in the world then this poll makes no sense because each group has different objectives.
If we’re talking about Al-Qaeda than the important thing to remember is that Al-Qaeda deliberately started a war with the United States on 9/11. At that time they wanted the US to attack Afghanistan and invade other Middle East countries. They reasoned that if they could lure US forces onto their own turf, America would be sucked into another quagmire like Vietnam where they could drain America’s power and eventually drive all American influences out of the Middle East and other Islamic states. At the time of 9/11 I am sure Al-Qaeda was quite happy to have someone like Bush as president since he would react in precisely the manner outlined above. The real question is what does Al-Qaeda want now?
The answer depends on whether you believe Al-Qaeda’s “trap” worked or not. If you believe that overwhelming American military power has inflicted massive damage on Al-Qaeda, then Al-Qaeda now has realized they have bitten off more than they can chew and they desperately need a respite from the fighting. If such is the case then Al-Qaeda would support a more dovish president like Kerry who would not pursue the war so aggressively, giving Al-Qaeda time to regroup and rebuild.
On the other hand, if you believe the trap worked and that America is now stuck in a Middle East quagmire that was planned by Al-Qaeda, then Al-Qaeda would definitely want Bush to remain president so that their war to weaken America could proceed as planned with no let up in the fighting.
I voted for Bush because I believe Al-Qaeda’s plan has worked perfectly and that America is indeed stuck in another quagmire which is going to completely drain this country both militarily and economically. I see no evidence that Al-Qaeda’s power has weakened, in fact it seems more powerful than ever as seen last week by the train bombings in Madrid. So far Bush has followed the trail of bread crumbs that Al-Qaeda has laid down for him. Why would Al-Qaeda now want to deal with another president who might be smart enough to look up and see where this Al-Qaeda trail is leading?
If we’re talking about Al-Qaeda than the important thing to remember is that Al-Qaeda deliberately started a war with the United States on 9/11. At that time they wanted the US to attack Afghanistan and invade other Middle East countries. They reasoned that if they could lure US forces onto their own turf, America would be sucked into another quagmire like Vietnam where they could drain America’s power and eventually drive all American influences out of the Middle East and other Islamic states. At the time of 9/11 I am sure Al-Qaeda was quite happy to have someone like Bush as president since he would react in precisely the manner outlined above. The real question is what does Al-Qaeda want now?
The answer depends on whether you believe Al-Qaeda’s “trap” worked or not. If you believe that overwhelming American military power has inflicted massive damage on Al-Qaeda, then Al-Qaeda now has realized they have bitten off more than they can chew and they desperately need a respite from the fighting. If such is the case then Al-Qaeda would support a more dovish president like Kerry who would not pursue the war so aggressively, giving Al-Qaeda time to regroup and rebuild.
On the other hand, if you believe the trap worked and that America is now stuck in a Middle East quagmire that was planned by Al-Qaeda, then Al-Qaeda would definitely want Bush to remain president so that their war to weaken America could proceed as planned with no let up in the fighting.
I voted for Bush because I believe Al-Qaeda’s plan has worked perfectly and that America is indeed stuck in another quagmire which is going to completely drain this country both militarily and economically. I see no evidence that Al-Qaeda’s power has weakened, in fact it seems more powerful than ever as seen last week by the train bombings in Madrid. So far Bush has followed the trail of bread crumbs that Al-Qaeda has laid down for him. Why would Al-Qaeda now want to deal with another president who might be smart enough to look up and see where this Al-Qaeda trail is leading?
[quote=Vermillion,Mar 18 2004, 04:25 PM]
[/QUOTE]
I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave.
[/quote]
Kerry's numerous words on this issue have been quoted extensively on many threads here. Truth be told, his positions are all over the place so I'm having a hard time guessing just what he actually would do.
My gut tells me he's going to take the soft route though. He's said he sees terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It isn't. He says the Patriot Act sacrifices too many liberties for the security it provides (but he voted for it anyway). Our troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists every single minute of every single day and yet Kerry voted against funding to support them in their mission.
These are just a few of the examples of how this leftist thinks about terrorism in today's world. I think he'd make a rather great President. Of France!
[/QUOTE]
I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave.
[/quote]
Kerry's numerous words on this issue have been quoted extensively on many threads here. Truth be told, his positions are all over the place so I'm having a hard time guessing just what he actually would do.
My gut tells me he's going to take the soft route though. He's said he sees terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It isn't. He says the Patriot Act sacrifices too many liberties for the security it provides (but he voted for it anyway). Our troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists every single minute of every single day and yet Kerry voted against funding to support them in their mission.
These are just a few of the examples of how this leftist thinks about terrorism in today's world. I think he'd make a rather great President. Of France!
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 18 2004, 10:48 PM)
My gut tells me he's going to take the soft route though. He's said he sees terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It isn't. He says the Patriot Act sacrifices too many liberties for the security it provides (but he voted for it anyway). Our troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists every single minute of every single day and yet Kerry voted against funding to support them in their mission.
These are just a few of the examples of how this leftist thinks about terrorism in today's world. I think he'd make a rather great President. Of France!
That's weak.
He says the patriot act sacrifices too many liberties, well a lot of people and not just the steriotypical far left you love to pretend is the only people who oppose Bush. Thats largely because it does, and there were a lot better ways to increase security without massively increasing government.
As for Iraq, there was no link between Iraq and the war on Terror, many links were invented, none panned out. NOW there is a link, because of the US invasion Al Quaida is active in Iraq and busy killing US troops. Lets be clear, because of Bush's invasion of Iraq, many US citizens have been killed by terrorists that would not have otherwise.
The arbitrary condemnation of anyone not-far-right as weak, cowardly or soft is as absurd as it is steriotypical.
Your final statement shows your true colours, in the end you would hate anyone who ran as a Democrat, no matter what their policies. It is easy for ultra-righters like you to hide the failures of the Bush regime behind the slogan "well a democrat would have been worse!" But it is empty rhetoric.
Kerry CLEARLY opposes terrorism, and would do so as actively, and probably more efficiently than Bush. If you want to insult Kerry, there is plenty of reason, just as there is reason to insult Bush. I have no problem with people who favour one person over an other for REAL reasons, but far too many loathe for the sake of loathing, and happily believe the worst and silliest things about one party while automatically deifying their own leader.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 18 2004, 03:25 PM)
So I will ask for a third time, what makes you think Kerry would be any less fervent in his pursuit of the War on Terror than Bush? Has he made any statements, given any indication he intends to back off on the war on terror? has he shown that he is weak-hearted or unwilling to use military options?
Here's a quick response. More to follow later in a new thread with supporting evidence.
John Kerry a is Neville Chamerlain like pacifist! Why?
1. Born to a NE Liberal Diplomatic family with strong European pacifist roots!
2. Educated with wealthy NE liberal pacifists.
3. Shocked by a very brief exposure to the reality of war in 4 months in Vietnam
4. Became an extreme anti-war activist upon his return to the states!
5. Continued his NE liberal anti-war and extreme left activities in MA in the Late '70s and early 80's
5. Activity involved with extreme left anti-war nuclear elimination activities in the early to mid '80s
6. Voted against a war of liberation in 1991 as a Senator
7. Voted against defense spending regularly during the 80's and 90's while supporting pacifist organizations.
8. Voted reluctantly to authorize action against a member of the Axis of Evil, a fascist rouge state that harbored and supported terrorists and that had laughed in the face of world opinion voiced in UN resolutions for 12 years.
9. Voted against funding the action against the same rogue state.
10. Postures himself as an Internationalist and appeaser even in the face of his own public denial.
If the American people want a pacifistic socialist 30 years into a 100 year war on Islamic Fascism I submit that we do so at the peril of the destruction of our culture. Neville Chamberlain effectively did exactly the same thing in 1936. Those who read world history know the result of his pacifism
As to the question in this thread, all of the above reasons support a terrorist preference for Kerry! They have no objective that can be negotiated, so I believe they would prefer a lessened effort towards their destruction!
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 16 2004, 07:15 PM)
It might be that Osama bin Laden and the Bushes have been carrying on a grudge match for years. OBL probably knows Bush well.
If electing Kerry meant that this war would be less of a personal nature than it is under G.W. Bush, it might be to everyone's benefit to have Kerry in office. He might be more objective, and objectivity seems to be in short supply these days.
Let’s hope we get every one of the terrorists that murdered over 3,000 Americans. I doubt OBL is there but if his #2 and supporters are there lets kill or capture them all.
Paladin do you have any evidence that Bush knows OBL? Sounds far fetched at best. And WHY would electing Kerry make the war “less personal”. Is it because he is soft on defense like his buddy Teddy K? And how does that help us?
ALL of us should take the murder of thousands of us very personally. These killers need to be found and killed. I hope that mass murder of Americans never ever becomes anything less.
It is quite obvious to me that GW plays right into someone like OBL hands. Oppresion and violence begats radicalism and lack of hope. Because of GW, he has squandered the natural tendency for US citizens to lock shoulders together to face a common foe- simply because he was not pursuing the right foe and concentrating on the real target- the wasteful war with Iraq. So we are completely divided as a nation- one only look to Offwinds comments on Kerry to see this.
OBL has really accomplished his goal in many ways with GW- we are less free, more divided and going off willy nilly in all directions in an ideological goose chase. Along with that, our own conservative elements have the upper hand in our goverment, very similar to the taliban with thier wish to restrict the rights of anyone that doesn't live up to thier particular/peculiar moral code.
Unfortunately for our timing, GW is the perfect "enemy" for OBL- he is ideolistic, conservative and rigid in his way of thinking, but very powerful militarily. To compete against a far stronger enemy, you play to his weakness, especially if you do not care if you die, and know your movement will grow only stronger with your death, and your legend will grow the longer you remain at large until your death. Since thier is no central leadership or massed enemy for us to attack, they will have the upper hand until WE start fighting against THIER main weakness- the poverty that breeds thier movement.
I wouldn't doubt that a full page ad by someone like OBL or his minions takes out a full page ad endorsing Kerry- it would just about ensure a repub victory, and continue thier ideological "bad guy" they need.
OBL has really accomplished his goal in many ways with GW- we are less free, more divided and going off willy nilly in all directions in an ideological goose chase. Along with that, our own conservative elements have the upper hand in our goverment, very similar to the taliban with thier wish to restrict the rights of anyone that doesn't live up to thier particular/peculiar moral code.
Unfortunately for our timing, GW is the perfect "enemy" for OBL- he is ideolistic, conservative and rigid in his way of thinking, but very powerful militarily. To compete against a far stronger enemy, you play to his weakness, especially if you do not care if you die, and know your movement will grow only stronger with your death, and your legend will grow the longer you remain at large until your death. Since thier is no central leadership or massed enemy for us to attack, they will have the upper hand until WE start fighting against THIER main weakness- the poverty that breeds thier movement.
I wouldn't doubt that a full page ad by someone like OBL or his minions takes out a full page ad endorsing Kerry- it would just about ensure a repub victory, and continue thier ideological "bad guy" they need.
Yes CrusingRam GW is the perfect enemy OBL. Unlike Clinton he takes action. We might have avoided 9/11 if Bill had reacted to the numerous attacks by OBL in the 90s, such as WTC I and numerous other attacks. But Bill was asleep and treated OBL as a “criminal” instead of a terrorist. And Kerry helped out by proposing we gut the already reduced CIA field budget by another 300 Million guaranteeing we would not get the warnings we needed before 9/11.
And Saddam was such a nice guy I can’t imaging why we would ever expect his to comply with all those nasty UN resolutions. Today it was reported that on top of all the horror he subjected his people to he had skimmed 10 billion $off of the UN oil for food program. Ya we should have just left the poor guy alone with his WMD.
And Saddam was such a nice guy I can’t imaging why we would ever expect his to comply with all those nasty UN resolutions. Today it was reported that on top of all the horror he subjected his people to he had skimmed 10 billion $off of the UN oil for food program. Ya we should have just left the poor guy alone with his WMD.
(Inappropriate comment removed -- Amlord)
1rst off- you keep repeating teh "Clinton did nothing about OBL" like it is true- of course it is not.
The bottom line is OBL has accomplished EXACTLY what he set out to do- radicalized his poeple in Saudi- the wahibists- even farther, if that is possible- we are radicallized and divided more than ever, by your own lack of focus and going on to blame Clinton, this is a supreme example of his success!
Had GW stayed the course, focused solely on Afghanistan, OBL and company, and the rebuilding of that country, AND THEN perhaps stair stepped or nation hopped to other "rogue" states- we might not be having this debate on this subject at all!
Yes, I think OBL, unfortunately, has pretty much achieved all his objectives- divided the world, restricted the freedoms of everyday Americans, harmed our economy, and now has a legend of being able to stay free of US captors for nearly 3 years- taking on a superior enemy weapons and technology-wise. Remember, they think differently than Americans- it is not winning that is important, but simply fighting the "bad guy" as best you can for as long as you can. GW has not only succeeded in making OBL a hero to our enemies, he has made him a legend.
1rst off- you keep repeating teh "Clinton did nothing about OBL" like it is true- of course it is not.
The bottom line is OBL has accomplished EXACTLY what he set out to do- radicalized his poeple in Saudi- the wahibists- even farther, if that is possible- we are radicallized and divided more than ever, by your own lack of focus and going on to blame Clinton, this is a supreme example of his success!
Had GW stayed the course, focused solely on Afghanistan, OBL and company, and the rebuilding of that country, AND THEN perhaps stair stepped or nation hopped to other "rogue" states- we might not be having this debate on this subject at all!
Yes, I think OBL, unfortunately, has pretty much achieved all his objectives- divided the world, restricted the freedoms of everyday Americans, harmed our economy, and now has a legend of being able to stay free of US captors for nearly 3 years- taking on a superior enemy weapons and technology-wise. Remember, they think differently than Americans- it is not winning that is important, but simply fighting the "bad guy" as best you can for as long as you can. GW has not only succeeded in making OBL a hero to our enemies, he has made him a legend.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 19 2004, 12:36 AM)
Had GW stayed the course, focused solely on Afghanistan, OBL and company, and the rebuilding of that country, AND THEN perhaps stair stepped or nation hopped to other "rogue" states- we might not be having this debate on this subject at all!
Stayed what course? Do you have some secret evidence that because of Iraq we just ignored Afghanistan? Please post it. The dramatic success of the operation belies your position. We have done everything necessary in Afghanistan as well as ending the evil regime in Iraq. Score 2 for GW.
What did bill do in Afghanistan and Iraq. 3 days of bombing in Iraq and a few cruise missiles in Afghanistan. Worthless tactics that accomplished exactly nothing.
So Ya lets get Mr. Kerry in office quickly so he can pick up where Bill left off. After all Bush has increased military spending – we gotta stop that right?
QUOTE
Unlike Clinton he takes action.
Somewhat ones sided there. It goes back farther. America laid the groundwork for not dealing with Terrorists back with Reagan and his lack of response to Beruit.
As for Saddam i find it very difficult to remember much mention of Iraq before 9/11. For all of the blame being leveled against Clinton could you please provide references to what must have been the constant struggle of Republicans to remove Saddam from power pre- 9/11?
nighttimer - That's one Republican's view on Kerry. Here's another:
First, I am not a Republican. Second, I was agreeing with the majority of Americans recently polled. Third, you cite just one Republican whose opinion is not shared by the majority of Americans. Forth, it does nothing to change my opinion that al-Qaeda Network terrorist would rather see anyone in the White House other then the current occupant.
DaytonRocker - "But Bush is their saving grace. The guy that claimed "I'm a uniter, not a divider" has divided our country, the UN, and the world. Other than that, he's kept to his word."
The nation was divided before GWB started campaigning in 2000. The Democrats have insured it has stayed divided, starting with Dashle prior to the mid-term elections, when Democrats knew they were going to lose their hair thin majority in the Senate, to Ted Kennedy and Kerry himself during the recent Dem Candidate campaign. Speeches designed to divide and fragment to nation. Speeches which promise only the Democrats can bring the nation back together (from the division they have caused), etc. As for GWB dividing the world on the WOT, please name five nations that were our allies in Jan of 2000 that are not aligned with the United states and its allies in the WOT today.
Vermillion - "I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave."
I have based my judgement on the fact that Kerry has been soft on military spending his entire time in the Senate. On the fact that he attempted to reduce the CIA budget so drastically in 1998 that he could not get one co-sponser for his bill. Even President Clinton came out against his proposal. 1998 was after the first attack on the WTC and 2 years after the CIA identified al-Qaeda and ObL to the Senate as growing threats to American National Security. Kerry just got finished voting against funding our troops serving in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly is his assertion that terrorism is a law enforcement problem, which leads me to suspect he would not use the military opinions available to him proactively in the WOT.
1SG
First, I am not a Republican. Second, I was agreeing with the majority of Americans recently polled. Third, you cite just one Republican whose opinion is not shared by the majority of Americans. Forth, it does nothing to change my opinion that al-Qaeda Network terrorist would rather see anyone in the White House other then the current occupant.
DaytonRocker - "But Bush is their saving grace. The guy that claimed "I'm a uniter, not a divider" has divided our country, the UN, and the world. Other than that, he's kept to his word."
The nation was divided before GWB started campaigning in 2000. The Democrats have insured it has stayed divided, starting with Dashle prior to the mid-term elections, when Democrats knew they were going to lose their hair thin majority in the Senate, to Ted Kennedy and Kerry himself during the recent Dem Candidate campaign. Speeches designed to divide and fragment to nation. Speeches which promise only the Democrats can bring the nation back together (from the division they have caused), etc. As for GWB dividing the world on the WOT, please name five nations that were our allies in Jan of 2000 that are not aligned with the United states and its allies in the WOT today.
Vermillion - "I am getting tired of this. Again and again people make comments like this, basing their judgement on what Kerry would do on nothing but the fact thet he is a Democrat, and they imagine he would behave as their biased steriotypical view of a democrat would behave."
I have based my judgement on the fact that Kerry has been soft on military spending his entire time in the Senate. On the fact that he attempted to reduce the CIA budget so drastically in 1998 that he could not get one co-sponser for his bill. Even President Clinton came out against his proposal. 1998 was after the first attack on the WTC and 2 years after the CIA identified al-Qaeda and ObL to the Senate as growing threats to American National Security. Kerry just got finished voting against funding our troops serving in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly is his assertion that terrorism is a law enforcement problem, which leads me to suspect he would not use the military opinions available to him proactively in the WOT.
1SG
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 19 2004, 12:54 AM)
As for Saddam i find it very difficult to remember much mention of Iraq before 9/11. For all of the blame being leveled against Clinton could you please provide references to what must have been the constant struggle of Republicans to remove Saddam from power pre- 9/11?
I agree it goes back further than BC but that does not change the facts.
Why did we need a “struggle by Republicans” for Bill to deal with Iraq. We are quick to blame GW for every person who dies in Iraq but Bill gets a pass on his do-nothing policy against Iraq. HE was the President in 98 when he said this.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Others in Congress, mostly Dems said the same thing. So exactly what did the PRESIDENT do? The answer is NOTHING. No ultimatum, no proposed new UN resolution, no movement of troops, - nothing.
Much of this debate (and most others probably) hinges on Iraq and the war on terror.
First, there is not one shred of evidence Iraq has/had anything to do with international terror. Save your "They funded Hamas" arguments. Every Arab nation in the region - including Saudi Arabia - did that. Every other claim - all 237 of them - has been proven to be false.
Now, as far as what Bush has done to fight terror, what's he done?
He invaded Afghanistan and correctly, whipped some Taliban butt. His success at that time cannot be disputed. America put a hurting on them. And God Bless 'em, while we're here arguing about policy decisions, we have men and women over there right now engaged in a fierce firefight with these murdering INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED. In my opinion, this is truly defending our nation because they are fighting a true enemy that has attacked us. Everyone of us should be proud of their actions and sacrifice because without them, we couldn't use our spell checker to whine in public.
It's absurd to think that Kerry would not have done the same thing. Bush was the right guy at the right time, but not the only one.
So, what else has Bush done? Ummm....nothing really.
He made our government bigger by creating the Department of Pretty Colors. Tom Ridge is in charge of assigning colors to the amount of "chatter" they hear. We did not have a foreign terrorist attack on our homeland 10 years before 9/11, and we didn't even color code anything.
How has this affected terrorists? It hasn't. Hell, Bush is granting amnesty to the illegals that snuck in. Unless he knows for a fact all these illegals are hard working Mexicans, it's likely many of these illegals are bomb wearing Arabs.
What has he done with our borders? Nothing. What's his plan? Make Vincente Fox feel better by letting more in illegally.
As Americans, we've suffered more for Bush's actions than terrorists. He's taken away many of our civil liberties while searching my grandmas shoes for bombs.
Now, he has Powell shaking his finger at the world saying crap like "Iran is dangerous and we need to act" while the world ridicules him.
So, with no credibility, treating Americans as terrorist suspects, and little to no action against terrorism on an international scale, why wouldn't terrorists want Bush in office for another 4 years? He certainly isn't hurting them.
First, there is not one shred of evidence Iraq has/had anything to do with international terror. Save your "They funded Hamas" arguments. Every Arab nation in the region - including Saudi Arabia - did that. Every other claim - all 237 of them - has been proven to be false.
Now, as far as what Bush has done to fight terror, what's he done?
He invaded Afghanistan and correctly, whipped some Taliban butt. His success at that time cannot be disputed. America put a hurting on them. And God Bless 'em, while we're here arguing about policy decisions, we have men and women over there right now engaged in a fierce firefight with these murdering INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED. In my opinion, this is truly defending our nation because they are fighting a true enemy that has attacked us. Everyone of us should be proud of their actions and sacrifice because without them, we couldn't use our spell checker to whine in public.
It's absurd to think that Kerry would not have done the same thing. Bush was the right guy at the right time, but not the only one.
So, what else has Bush done? Ummm....nothing really.
He made our government bigger by creating the Department of Pretty Colors. Tom Ridge is in charge of assigning colors to the amount of "chatter" they hear. We did not have a foreign terrorist attack on our homeland 10 years before 9/11, and we didn't even color code anything.
How has this affected terrorists? It hasn't. Hell, Bush is granting amnesty to the illegals that snuck in. Unless he knows for a fact all these illegals are hard working Mexicans, it's likely many of these illegals are bomb wearing Arabs.
What has he done with our borders? Nothing. What's his plan? Make Vincente Fox feel better by letting more in illegally.
As Americans, we've suffered more for Bush's actions than terrorists. He's taken away many of our civil liberties while searching my grandmas shoes for bombs.
Now, he has Powell shaking his finger at the world saying crap like "Iran is dangerous and we need to act" while the world ridicules him.
So, with no credibility, treating Americans as terrorist suspects, and little to no action against terrorism on an international scale, why wouldn't terrorists want Bush in office for another 4 years? He certainly isn't hurting them.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 19 2004, 12:07 AM)
Along with that, our own conservative elements have the upper hand in our goverment, very similar to the taliban with thier wish to restrict the rights of anyone that doesn't live up to thier particular/peculiar moral code.
When the Bush-bashers reveal their thinking along lines like this, why are they surprised that most Americans think of them as un-American? And since Kerry is pandering to them, why wouldn't we believe he too is bad for the USA. And surely you cant argue that what's bad for the USA is good for the terrorists. Ergo, the terrorists would love their man Kerry in the White House.
Think about it, they know how he turned on his own country and its troops when he retuned from his brief stint in Vietnam. They know how he's voted to gut our defense and intel budgets time after time. Why in the world wouldnt they want that type of pantywaist at the helm?
Add his socialist wife to the mix and they get a real twofer. With all the left-wing outfits she tosses her money at it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some of her bucks turn up in terrorist-supporting tills.
Wouldn't that be special!
QUOTE
Think about it, they know how he turned on his own country and its troops when he retuned from his brief stint in Vietnam.
He did not "turn on his own country"--he brought to the fore actions by SOME soldiers like those that were committed at the My Lai massacre:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html
Kerry also demonstrated and testified on the number of American casualties that were taking place in a war that this country was losing. That can hardly be construed as un-American. It means that he, unlike some others, did not have a yardstick shoved up his--er--back when it came to U.S. foreign policy. And he doesn't have that yardstick now, either.
QUOTE
They know how he's voted to gut our defense and intel budgets time after time.
Yeah, they know about as much about it as you've revealed in your post. Taken in context (odd idea, eh?), for instance the tremendous tax cuts to the wealthy class (which, incidentally, could fund very well things the troops could use) that were included in the bills in question. But I don't care about the context for terrorists; I care about Americans being informed before they cast their votes.
QUOTE
Why in the world wouldnt they want that type of pantywaist at the helm?
As opposed to the "pantywaist" who is at the helm now?
QUOTE
Add his socialist wife to the mix and they get a real twofer.
Yeah, she's REAL dangerous--Attack of the Ketchup Heiress!!!
QUOTE
With all the left-wing outfits she tosses her money at it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some of her bucks turn up in terrorist-supporting tills.
Two comments: Without a right and a left wing, the eagle can't fly.
, and-- Isn't it incredibly brave to attack the wife of a Presidential candidate!! Allege that she might support a terrorist organization? No, Passion51, I think to attack the candidate's wife and make such an allegation is cowardly and inappropriate. Bash Hillary in four years instead; she can take it, and she gives back as good as she gets.
Remember one thing: Chances are that even if Kerry is elected, he will have to deal with a Congress with Republicans in the majority.
Two comments: Without a right and a left wing, the eagle can't fly. , and--
Yeah! that makes sense except the left wing in this country has moved so far left that it's going ashore in China!
Yeah! that makes sense except the left wing in this country has moved so far left that it's going ashore in China!
Lets try and keep this on topic. We are not discussing the theoretical values of the American Political Spectrum. The question for debate is:
Who would the terrorists like to see win.
One liners and political castigations are not appropriate.
Who would the terrorists like to see win.
One liners and political castigations are not appropriate.
Who do the terrorists want to win? Why, themselves, of course. So, do they stand a better chance of that happening with Bush or Kerry in office? Me thinks the answer would be Kerry, but I'm sure most of his supporters will say Bush. This is really a different side of the coin that started the 'foreign leaders support Kerry' issue--exactly why should support from someone whose interests are directly against ours be considered a good thing? With terrorists, it's obviously not something Kerry's folks would want to advertise. Why any different with the foreign leaders...as with the terrorists, they are looking at the issue from perspectives not aligned with our best interests.
QUOTE
exactly why should support from someone whose interests are directly against ours be considered a good thing?
Foreign leaders were with us in the fight against terrorism. Right up until Bush said lets get saddam. Nobody even chirped against us going after the Taliban and AlQuaeda. Democrats stood with the President on the fight against Terrorists. Right up until Iraq.
2 wings to fly huh? How about a brain to steer?
OK, Christopher, you had me confused there for a sec....
...as it's not typical posting style to combine a quote from one post with a comment directed at a completely different post (particularly when the comment references steering the brain).
...and they still are, so not sure about the relevance of the rest of your post. Which, even if its relevance is given, still doesn't address the fundamental point I was making, which is: Neither terrorists nor foreign leaders have the US's best interests in mind, so we should be cautious making judgements based on their input. With the terrorists, the difference is just more blatant, is all.
QUOTE
2 wings to fly huh? How about a brain to steer?
...as it's not typical posting style to combine a quote from one post with a comment directed at a completely different post (particularly when the comment references steering the brain).
QUOTE
Foreign leaders were with us in the fight against terrorism
...and they still are, so not sure about the relevance of the rest of your post. Which, even if its relevance is given, still doesn't address the fundamental point I was making, which is: Neither terrorists nor foreign leaders have the US's best interests in mind, so we should be cautious making judgements based on their input. With the terrorists, the difference is just more blatant, is all.
christopher - "Foreign leaders were with us in the fight against terrorism. Right up until Bush said lets get saddam. Nobody even chirped against us going after the Taliban and AlQuaeda. Democrats stood with the President on the fight against Terrorists. Right up until Iraq."
Although not all our allies in the WOT are with us in Iraq, I can think of not one nation or national leader that was with us prior to our invasion of Iraq who have pulled out or reduced their efforts in the WOT. Too many people are confusing support for the WOT with Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On point, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to expect Islamic Fundamental Terrorists to prefer Kerry over Bush if for no other reason then they know Bush will fight them. No one can be sure of Kerry until and unless he is in position to do so.
IMO, changing leaders at this time sends the clear message to the terrorists that America does not want to fight the war on terrorism as it has done, so successfully to this point. To give that impression to those who have publically stated they want to see our nation crushed and our way of life destroyed is extremely dangerous.
1SG
Although not all our allies in the WOT are with us in Iraq, I can think of not one nation or national leader that was with us prior to our invasion of Iraq who have pulled out or reduced their efforts in the WOT. Too many people are confusing support for the WOT with Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On point, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to expect Islamic Fundamental Terrorists to prefer Kerry over Bush if for no other reason then they know Bush will fight them. No one can be sure of Kerry until and unless he is in position to do so.
IMO, changing leaders at this time sends the clear message to the terrorists that America does not want to fight the war on terrorism as it has done, so successfully to this point. To give that impression to those who have publically stated they want to see our nation crushed and our way of life destroyed is extremely dangerous.
1SG
Poland today announced that they were "misled" by the US on Iraq- I think that the simple fact that the US is becoming more and more isolated by GW really is a coup for the terrorists- and in fact, Kerry would probably be an actual "uniter" instead of a "divider" like GW- and a REAL coalition, without so much bickering, but more just the usual disagreements between friends, might actually be better for the ACTUAL WOT.
GW has next to no credibility in the world, and the foriegn elected goverments that support GW too closely are in danger losing thier jobs. I don't think this will be true with Kerry. That alone makes Kerry more dangerous to the terrorists.
GW has next to no credibility in the world, and the foriegn elected goverments that support GW too closely are in danger losing thier jobs. I don't think this will be true with Kerry. That alone makes Kerry more dangerous to the terrorists.
Ha! Kerry? Credibility? That's a good one.
First Kerry is for going to war, then he's not. Then, he is, just not the way Bush did.
He's voted time and again for against military pay increases and badly needed supplemental funding for troops. He then plays his 'I'm one of you guys' card with the soldiers fighting the war, all the while slamming their commander in chief and accusing Bush of things he himself is guilty of.
Kerry has as much credibility as a used car salesman in my opinion. Now, it may be a dangerous card to play, but we know that right or wrong, Bush will come out and play.
First Kerry is for going to war, then he's not. Then, he is, just not the way Bush did.
He's voted time and again for against military pay increases and badly needed supplemental funding for troops. He then plays his 'I'm one of you guys' card with the soldiers fighting the war, all the while slamming their commander in chief and accusing Bush of things he himself is guilty of.
Kerry has as much credibility as a used car salesman in my opinion. Now, it may be a dangerous card to play, but we know that right or wrong, Bush will come out and play.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 19 2004, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 19 2004, 12:07 AM)
Along with that, our own conservative elements have the upper hand in our goverment, very similar to the taliban with thier wish to restrict the rights of anyone that doesn't live up to thier particular/peculiar moral code.
When the Bush-bashers reveal their thinking along lines like this, why are they surprised that most Americans think of them as un-American? And since Kerry is pandering to them, why wouldn't we believe he too is bad for the USA. And surely you cant argue that what's bad for the USA is good for the terrorists. Ergo, the terrorists would love their man Kerry in the White House.
Think about it, they know how he turned on his own country and its troops when he retuned from his brief stint in Vietnam. They know how he's voted to gut our defense and intel budgets time after time. Why in the world wouldnt they want that type of pantywaist at the helm?
Add his socialist wife to the mix and they get a real twofer. With all the left-wing outfits she tosses her money at it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some of her bucks turn up in terrorist-supporting tills.
Wouldn't that be special!
You hit the nail on the head Passion51. let’s also remember that Kerry has literally voted against every effective weapons system used in this and Gulf War I. He can be counted on to do the same as president if elected. Needless to say the terrorists would love to have their dirty work made easier by the likes of Mr. Kerry.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.