If Kerry were elected what a nightmare our world would become..(nice article)..

[drivemytrabant]

The guy who wrote this article is obviously on the other side of the political landscape than John Kerry. He is describing the worst case scenario of what might happen should the situation be handled completely the wrong way. You must vote for who you think has the least chance of doing this and the best chance of achieving the goal in Iraq: turning it into a democracy and an powerful ally in the middle east and the war on terror.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Of course, that's not what he said at all.

Matt Bai--"what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Kerry--''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,''

That having been said--Do I think John Kerry believes that terrorism is nothing but a "nuisance" in this world? No. But he certainly didn't choose the right words there--and the rebublicans hammered him for it. The democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed. This is an election year after all.

 

[sharky]

He's not saying they are a nuisance, he's saying he wants to get back to a point where they are a nuisance. Wow, that word twisting was Karl Rove quality.

 

[deep]

liberal liberal liberal

When you have NO record to run on.

Distorted soundbites and name calling is all you've got.

 

[strannix]

Matt Bai--"what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Kerry--''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,''

That having been said--Do I think John Kerry believes that terrorism is nothing but a "nuisance" in this world? No. But he certainly didn't choose the right words there--and the rebublicans hammered him for it. The democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed. This is an election year after all.

Here's the question: Do you disagree with Kerry? If not, explain. If so, who cares if he "didn't choose the right words"?

I hate this kind of superficial analysis. He "didn't choose the right words"? I don't understand why anyone would possibly care, unless the only goal is to smear.

 

[drivemytrabant]

He's not saying they are a nuisance, he's saying he wants to get back to a point where they are a nuisance. Wow, that word twisting was Karl Rove quality.

Can you really say that terrorists were ever really just a "nuisance?" How can we get back to a point that never existed in the first place? I think religious fanatics killing people is way over the nuisance level. Explaining my position is "word twisting" *sigh*

 

[drivemytrabant]

Here's the question: Do you disagree with Kerry? If not, explain. If so, who cares if he "didn't choose the right words"?

I hate this kind of superficial analysis. He "didn't choose the right words"? I don't understand why anyone would possibly care, unless the only goal is to smear.

Do I disagree with Kerry on this quote? YES! But I'm giving the guy the benifit of the doubt that I don't really think he meant to say that terrorists were simply a nuisance. Your previous post simply said that Kerry didn't say that when its obvious he did.

 

[BVS]

Kerry--''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,''

I don't get it, this is possibly the most honest and logical thing a politician has said about the war on terror yet it's getting thrown around and twisted in all kinds of ways. Do you ever think terrorism will be completely stopped? If you do you're kidding yourself. At the best of times terrorism will be there, but it won't require red alerts, people duct taping there windows, people living in fear everytime a firework stand catches on fire, US occupations or the government telling you they need to curb your rights ever so slightly. How no one can understand that is beyond me and anyone who twists that quote around to make people think Kerry has no grasp about the situation has absolutely no grasp on the situation themselves.

And this is not a partisan rant. I'm no means a huge Kerry fan, I just think he's the best choice out of the two, but the ignorance that is behind the twisting of that quote angers me.
*End of rant*

With that being said, my response to this article is that I'm still hoping that the last 4 years I've been in a coma and this has just been a bad dream of mine.

 

[verte76]

Remember Kerry recently stated that terrorists should be viewed as nuisances only..

Yes, at one point he was quoted as saying that they were "nuisances", but I think he understands that they are a security threat and all of that good stuff. But I mean, heck, all I can do is vote, and then accept the outcome as the voice of the people. I admit it, the quality of my life has improved drastically during the Bush Administration, so it's not exactly the end of my world or whatever if he is re-elected. I am trying to be reasonable about this situation. It's not easy. There is so much emotion out there. My parents are manic. Damn, hurry up Election Day!!

 

[drivemytrabant]

nui·sance n.
One that is inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious; a bother: Having to stand in line was a nuisance. The disruptive child was a nuisance to the class.

Forgive me if I never have and never will see terroists that way.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Yes, at one point he was quoted as saying that they were "nuisances", but I think he understands that they are a security threat and all of that good stuff.

Thank you that is what I've been saying. I agree.

 

[diamond]

George W Bush after all but vanquishing the cancer and scourge of terrorism and will redefine terorrism as we now know it.

Terrorism will be relegated down to a nuisance with or without John Kerry impeding the way.

It's quite simple.

db9

 

[strannix]

Your previous post simply said that Kerry didn't say that when its obvious he did.

He did not say what Diamond said he did. Maybe Diamond just did a poor job paraphrasing, but the way it was presented indicated that Kerry just wouldn't worry about the terrorists. And that's just wrong.

I think Kerry is basically right - terrorism is a fact of life. We'll never get rid of it completely, because there will always be crazy people willing to kill others to further a political or religious cause.

 

[strannix]

George W Bush after all but vanquishing the cancer and scourge of terrorism and will redefine terorrism as we now know it.

Terrorism will be relegated down to a nuisance with or without John Kerry impeding the way.

It's quite simple.

db9

Actually, it's quite complex. Perhaps you could explain it for me. I guess by "all but vanquishing" terrorism, you mean "creating the most favorable conditions for terrorists on the planet and then enacting some as-yet-undefined plan to get rid of them, but only after a second term is in the bag."

I'd like to believe you, I really would. But ignoring terrorists in Afghanistan while creating terrorists in Iraq is a plan too tricky for my feeble mind to handle.

 

[thebigidea]

What absolutely irks me about this article, and so many similar partisan attacks against Senator Kerry, is that they misunderstand his arguments and positions. Engagement in the world does not automatically translate into weakness or indecision; nor does it mean that the U.N. would become our sole legitimizer before undertaking action. Instead, Senator Kerry's "global test" is that the United States' actions and policies must be seen as legitimate by other nation-states and like-minded governments; in short, we should all be able to agree that the ends we pursue (in pursuit of democracy and freedom around the world) must square with the means we deploy to achieve them. With respect to Iraq, where the United States faced no imminent threat, we should have spent more time engaging our European and Middle Eastern allies before lunching a pre-emptive war. With respect to Afghanistan, where we clearly had the right to launch an attack in self-defense after September 11th and found broad international support for our actions, our legitimacy in acting was never in question.

Further, I believe it is counter-intuitive for someone to argue that Senator Kerry would not defend the United States if attacked. That argument borders on idiocy. I do not doubt President Bush's honesty when he claims he will defend the United States at all costs; nonetheless, I do question his decision-making as to which countries or groups threan us -- and which ones we must face. To my thinking, Iran and North Korea deserved more attention than they received --- instead, President Bush focused all of his administration's energies on the purported threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Concerning the situation in Iraq now, the situation is dangeously unstable. The President's policies there have been ill-implemented and, before that, were ill-conceived. The President did not provide enough troops to stabilize the country; has deceived the American people with respect to the number of Iraqi security forces that are now trained and ready to defend Iraq; has maintained troop strength through "stop-loss" orders that keep national guards and reservists in the military beyond their contract terms (the President claims that the men and women "are proud of the work they are doing there," which I don't doubt, but still leads me to wonder whether or not such troops' decisions to remain in Iraq should then be made on a voluntary basis and not imposed); and has continued to assert the disproven claim (by Rumsfield and Powell, no less) that there was an Iraqi-al-Qaeda connection.

So while Mr. William Tucker may worry about a Kerry presidency, my great fear is that I will wake up on November 3rd with another four years of President Bush and more of the same. More arrogance, more deception, and more incompetence when what we need in the U.S. -- and world -- is an American leader who is determined, yet open to a revision of position in light of new evidence, smart and subtle, and cabable of repairing our relationships in the world.

 

[BVS]

nui·sance n.
One that is inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious; a bother: Having to stand in line was a nuisance. The disruptive child was a nuisance to the class.

Forgive me if I never have and never will see terroists that way.

or how about this one...

Main Entry: nui·sance
Pronunciation: 'nüs-&ns, 'nyüs-
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French nusaunce, from Old French nuire to harm, from Latin nocEre
: something (as an act, object, or practice) that invades or interferes with another's rights or interests by being offensive, annoying, dangerous, obstructive, or unhealthful
[/B]

I think this definition would most definately fit how most Americans viewed terrorism before this "war" on it erupted.

 

[diamond]

strannix,
Quite simply if you equate terroists to cockroaches, they will always be among us.
I think we agree on that.

It just so happens that I do think Bush's approach to Kerry's approach will have the terrorists down to nuisance quicker and more effectively than Kerry's.

Or more aptly put, I appreciate Bush's approach in contrast to Kerry's more "sensitive" approach to fighting the War On Terror.

db9

 

[joyfulgirl]

Were it not for the fact that I strongly believe that Bush needs to be FIRED because this is the only way he’ll get it through his thick head how much he has damaged America,

and that there might be a couple of new Supreme Court Justice appointments during the next 4 years,

I would consider voting for Bush just so he could clean up his own damn mess (not that he could).

 

[diamond]

Ms Joyful,

youre still beautiful.

db9

 

[BVS]

... in contrast to Kerry's more "sensitive" approach to fighting the War On Terror.

Then maybe Bush should use "Macho Man" as his campaign song as he poses with his cowboy hat.

 

[diamond]

Then maybe Bush should use "Macho Man" as his campaign song as he poses with his cowboy hat.

For my friend, Mr.BVSS -

I am just a cowboy lonesome on the trail
A starry night, a campfire light
The coyote call, the howling winds wail
So I ride out to the old sundown

I am just a cowboy lonesome on the trail
Lord, I’m just thinking about a certain female
The nights we spent together riding on the range
Looking back it seems so strange

Roll me over and turn me around
Let me keep spinning till I hit the ground
Roll me over and let me go
Running free with the buffalo

I was took in texas I did not know her name
Lord, all these southern girls seem the same
Down below the border in a town in mexico
I got my job busting broncs for the rodeo

Roll me over and turn me around
Let me keep spinning till I hit the ground
Roll me over and let me go
Riding in the rodeo

Roll me over and set me free
The cowboy’s life is the life for me

 

[U2democrat]

Oh great, know this will get added to the Pleba-like Edwards thread....

hahaha i saw that pic yesterday. there are actually better kerry/edwards doctored photos out there i think i'll post them on the edwards thread right now!

 

[A_Wanderer]

All this talk of terrorism being a nuicance, that somehow we must make the world back as it was on September 10 2001 is quite disturbing. Yes we will probably never stop terrorism but to then take a defeatist stance and decide to put it to the side, as a nuisance, is self-delusion. You cannot declare a unilateral peace and expect it to be supported by your enemies - in their minds your are all worthy of death and shall be slaughtered by the millions. The stakes are too high for terrorism to be treated the same way as it was in the 1990's. You also cannot fight a more sensitive WoT, the only thing that your enemies will accept is force - case in point the attitude towards America after Somalia where the US showed it was a paper tiger that could not take any casualties. Basically the WoT is a global war with multiple fronts, integrated intelligence and millitary operations as well as a stronger law enforcement at home and to downgrade it because it is not the same as it was before 9/11 would be profoundly misguided.

Tell the man with his head being carved off that it is merely a nuicance, tell the mamed and bleeding victims of a suicide homocide bomb that it is a nuicance. You cannot make terrorism just a nuicance - treating terrorism as a nuicance is exactly the type of thinking that allowed 9/11 to happen and that goes for both the Clinton and Bush administrations

 

[BostonAnne]

 

[BVS]

All this talk of terrorism being a nuicance, that somehow we must make the world back as it was on September 10 2001 is quite disturbing. Yes we will probably never stop terrorism but to then take a defeatist stance and decide to put it to the side, as a nuisance, is self-delusion. You cannot declare a unilateral peace and expect it to be supported by your enemies - in their minds your are all worthy of death and shall be slaughtered by the millions. The stakes are too high for terrorism to be treated the same way as it was in the 1990's. You also cannot fight a more sensitive WoT, the only thing that your enemies will accept is force - case in point the attitude towards America after Somalia where the US showed it was a paper tiger that could not take any casualties. Basically the WoT is a global war with multiple fronts, integrated intelligence and millitary operations as well as a stronger law enforcement at home and to downgrade it because it is not the same as it was before 9/11 would be profoundly misguided.

Tell the man with his head being carved off that it is merely a nuicance, tell the mamed and bleeding victims of a suicide homocide bomb that it is a nuicance. You cannot make terrorism just a nuicance - treating terrorism as a nuicance is exactly the type of thinking that allowed 9/11 to happen and that goes for both the Clinton and Bush administrations

So you want it like this for the rest of existance? You say you know it can't be stopped, yet you don't want it to be minimized to a minor hazzard. I don't see another choice. Your force over intellelect is what I find disturbing. You want to live in fear. If we follow the mentality we're in right now we'll just keep occupying until we piss enough people off and head towards WWIII. But maybe you can explain another option.

 

[-macphisto-]

I dont want either of them, but Kerry seems just like a bitter old man, at least Bush has alot more excitement and enthusiasm.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Force over intellect, I think not.

What I am saying is that you cannot just lob a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical factory after an attack and expect everything to be allright. You cannot just say that an attack is to small to warrant a response. They tried to play it safe in the '90's by not pissing people off, we appeased Arafat and didn't put the pressure on Bin Laden and look where that got us.

It is not ignorant to think that the best defence is a good offence, this is the business of saving lives and it requires eternal vigilance. Couple this with a program to reform the Arab world and bring liberty to diminish the hold of Islamism in the region and the magnitude threat will decrease.

The problem is definition, this is not really a war on terrorism it is a war on Islamism/Islamofascism. We are not going after ETA or the IRA we are going after Islamic Terror groups. Eliminating the support that they recieve by drasticaly improving the quality of life of Moslems is the only solution, to prevent another generation rallying to the cause. Liberty is the cure to despotism.

I do find it interesting the way that people dismiss millitary power as a stupid thing, as if only the most ignorant of leaders would use it when there are other softer tools at their disposal. As if those that do not hold peace at any price as their doctrine are somehow intellectually inferior to the enlightened individuals who sit sipping their lattes telling the rest of the world that they are not able to accept freedom, "liberty for me but not for thee" is the racism of low expectations - who can think that those brown men living in societies that treat their women worse than dogs can ever improve. Massive change is the only viable solution, the only other one would be to construct a total police state and exterminate all those who deviate from the non-threatening mould that the state desires from its citizens.

 

[BVS]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that our actions will be the same as the 90's but that we need to bring the world back to where the temperature was.

Eliminating the support that they recieve by drasticaly improving the quality of life of Moslems is the only solution, to prevent another generation rallying to the cause. Liberty is the cure to despotism.

This part I'll agree with...This still won't ever eliminate terrorism. And I don't think we're on the right path to that now. You're definition doesn't stand up to what the rest of the world is presenting as the reason for this war and we'll never reach this goal by attacking through false definitions and reasoning.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No way, the "temperature " of the 1990's was an abysmal failure - attemptimg to turn the heat down (so to speak) would be planting the seeds for an even greater attack. The actions may be different but if you go after terrorism in the same limp way you will fail, no matter what the specific deeds.

Liberty will not end terrorism any more than happiness will end nuclear bombs - what it will do is eliminate the vicious ideology of Islamism the same way that all totallitarian ideologys are buried when people can live free, safe and open lives.

As for Iraq its very obvious - Its all about the OIL!!!!!!!

 

[Boston01]

The problem with Kerry is that he can say anything he wants. the fundamental problem is that the last 30 years of his career suggest alternate behavior to what he portrays now.