If Kerry were elected what a nightmare our world would become..(nice article).. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-20-2004, 01:40 PM   #31
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
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 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 01:54 PM   #32
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix


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.
__________________

__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 01:57 PM   #33
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 04:24 AM
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.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:00 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:24 AM
liberal liberal liberal

When you have NO record to run on.

Distorted soundbites and name calling is all you've got.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:06 PM   #35
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drivemytrabant


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.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:09 PM   #36
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:12 PM   #37
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix


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.
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:14 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drivemytrabant


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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:19 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
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!!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:20 PM   #40
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
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 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:22 PM   #41
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


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.
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:22 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:24 AM
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
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:24 PM   #43
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drivemytrabant
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 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:28 PM   #44
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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
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.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 02:32 PM   #45
Babyface
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12
Local Time: 09:24 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
thebigidea is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com