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

[BostonAnne]

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.

Please explain.

 

[anitram]

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.

The fundamental problem is that the last 30 years of Bush's career suggest utter incompetence.

 

[BVS]

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!!!!!!!

You're not grasping this. NO ONE IS SAYING TO APPROACH TERRORISM IN THE SAME LIMP WAY AS THE 90'S!

It's like dealing with a forest fire that will never go out, the idea is to bring it down to a small maintanable ember. Reduce it down to a "nuicance" rather than a consuming fire that keeps taking the lives of innocent people.

Freedom does not eliminate ideologies. You will still have the oppressed and those that will have no where to turn. We have freedom here and still these ideologies exist. You will never eliminate any of this, just reduce it down to something that is maintainable.

You said it about Iraq, not me.

 

[diamond]

why do my threads rock so much?

 

[GibsonExplorer]

Your threads are "partisan hackery".

 

[diamond]

 

[A_Wanderer]

If its from Joe Wilson then its the Gospel Truth but if its from someone on the other side of the fence then it is Partisan Hackery - cant we just stick to Abortion Threads.

 

[Diemen]

So really what you're saying then, diamond and wanderer, is that the war on terror will never end. That we must always live under an orange alert, or a yellow alert, or a red alert, that we must always have troops out engaging whatever terrorists remain, no matter the number? that we must strenghten the patriot act until it is simply impossible for terrorists to live in this country or the world (nevermind the rights of the rest of us)? This seems to be the logical conclusion if we can't ever get ourselves to a point where terrorism is no longer such a big concern.

Lets say that we manage to weaken terrorists to the point that they are incapable of attacking us to any great degree. Would you agree that at that point they should cease to be the biggest concern on our country's mind? Do you agree that at that point, we don't have to have our military overextended around the globe trying to kill them? Do you agree that we can scale back our aggression on that front once it is to the point where they no longer have the means to pull off any sort of significant attack?

Then at that point, terrorism will be a nuisance. Now perhaps, nuisance isn't the absolutely perfect word to describe it, but I think it's clear from what Kerry said and his camp has said afterwards that they are no less committed to fighting terrorism than Bush is, and they are not suggesting we return to our pre-9/11 ways, but rather, once we have eliminated the threat of constant terrorism, we simply don't have to make it as big a priority anymore.

Now this DOES NOT MEAN that he'll ignore it. It means that once we quash the main force of terrorism, we keep it at that level where it is much more easily controlled. For example, where a whole swarm of ants can act in a coordinated manner and overwhelm animals much larger than themselves, just a few ants are easily be squashed. If we fight terrorism to the point where it's only a few ants, it is foolhardy to still focus most of our attention solely on them. We can still keep a watchful eye on them and swat the few that may be attempting to try something, but when we get the world to a point where terrorism is no longer a daily threat, then we will be at a better place. That's what I understood Kerry to be saying.

I really tire of these stupid insinuations that Kerry is going to simply roll over and let terrorists have their way with us. It's bullshit - simply more fear mongering from the Bush administration. And that's all the Bush administration has been able to sell itself with. Fear. We'll keep you safe, but terrorists will attack if Kerry wins. Kerry won't be tough on terrorism. Nevermind what he says, he's a wimp. Blah blah blah blah blah...

 

[diamond]

.



Diemen,
Terrorism will always be among us, in one degree or another.
Under Kerry it seems the terrorists are more likely to flourish and prosper.

The majority of the general public in our country agree that Bush is a stronger leader against terrorism.

I really tire of these stupid insinuations that Kerry is going to simply roll over and let terrorists have their way with us.

Kerry's history and voting record show that he's been soft. You can't run from your voting recording. You can do as Kerry attempts to, spin your past voting recording and try and dupe impressionable voting block who will maybe buy it, as Kerry is gambling that they will.

Blah blah blah blah blah...

I can understand your frustration. i would feel the same if my canidate was a weak as yours

For example, where a whole swarm of ants can act in a coordinated manner and overwhelm animals much larger than themselves, just a few ants are easily be squashed. If we fight terrorism

Very good Diemen, here's an earlier pest analogy I made in the thread, you may of breezed over.
Here's what i wrote:
strannix,
Quite simply if you equate terroists to cockroaches, they will always be among us.
I think we agree on that.

----------------------------------------------

So really what you're saying then, diamond and wanderer, is that the war on terror will never end. That we must always live under an orange alert, or a yellow alert

No.

Terrorism will always be among us, in one degree or another.
Under Kerry it seems the terrorists are more likely to flourish and prosper.

Lets say that we manage to weaken terrorists to the point that they are incapable of attacking us to any great degree.

That's what were doing.

And it will happen with the Bush plan quicker than Kerry's latest plan of the week.

Then at that point, terrorism will be a nuisance.

That's the ultimate goal.

It means that once we quash the main force of terrorism,

That's what were doing.

terrorism is no longer a daily threat,

Correct.

 

[strannix]

diamond, I really think it's time you joined the rest of us in the reality-based community. It's nice here; we don't have to deal with all those pesky scales over our eyes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Reality based community?

I think that Diamond raises some good points, it is not enough to say that we should be more sensitive in this war and not isolate those important dictators and buerocrats at the UN when it comes to fighting terrorism. It requires decisive use of both soft and hard power even when it is unpopular. You should not compromise the fight for want to be loved by your enemy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Can I also say that I have a personal beef with the Kerry/Edwards Campaign. Now this has nothing to do with policy or statements, just the fact that they have ruined Beautiful Day , I have the image of them getting up on stage with the music going seared, seared, into my memory. It will be many a year before I can even listen to that song without seeing Kedwards/

 

[Diemen]

Under Kerry it seems the terrorists are more likely to flourish and prosper.

The majority of the general public in our country agree that Bush is a stronger leader against terrorism.

1) That is your opinion
2) The majority of the general public is easily swayed

That's what were doing.

That's the ultimate goal.

That's what were doing.

Correct.

Ah, so then you do agree with Kerry's statement that we should get to the point where terrorism is a nuisance. Nice to know we could reach an agreement.

 

[Diemen]

Reality based community?

That's actually a term that the Bush administration has used on it's detractors.

Here is a fascinating article from the NY Times that probes into that a little deeper. It's actually one of the best articles I've read in regards to Bush's doctrine and presidency.

A brief quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

 

[nbcrusader]

2) The majority of the general public is easily swayed

This is a dangerous line of thinking, as it only implies that the public is "stupid" when they do not agree with you.

 

[diamond]

1) That is your opinion




Ah, so then you do agree with Kerry's statement that we should get to the point where terrorism is a nuisance. Nice to know we could reach an agreement.

2) The majority of the general public is easily swayed

Not really, I think GW has earned how the public perceives him as someone fighting terror and that while Kerry has earned his reputation.

Yes and we do agree that one day in the future the terrorists will be relegated to pests we differ on the method is all.

db9

 

[Diemen]

I think GW has earned how the public perceives him

You speak as if the public is in unanimous support of Bush, which obviously isn't the case otherwise the presidential race wouldn't be so close (and vice versa for the public's perception of Kerry). But if by public, you also include those that think the Bush administration has made huge errors, then yes, he has earned that perception.

 

[strannix]

it is not enough to say that we should be more sensitive in this war and not isolate those important dictators and buerocrats at the UN when it comes to fighting terrorism. It requires decisive use of both soft and hard power even when it is unpopular. You should not compromise the fight for want to be loved by your enemy.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb. Kerry's never said anything that can possibly be construed as wanting to "compromise the fight for want to be loved by your enemy." That's just a dishonest spin point made up by dishonest people to distract the public from the fact that Bush has more to encourage terrorism than to curb it.

 

[diamond]

You speak as if the public is in unanimous support of Bush, which obviously isn't the case otherwise the presidential race wouldn't be so close (and vice versa for the public's perception of Kerry). But if by public, you also include those that think the Bush administration has made huge errors, then yes, he has earned that perception.

No no, perceives him as a stronger leader in fighting the War On Terror.
It's pretty simple.

db9

 

[U2democrat]

of course they perceive him as a strong leader in the war on terror, THEY HAVE NO ONE TO COMPARE HIM AGAINST!!! he's the ONLY president since the war on terror began!!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Bush has done more to encourage terrorism, please tell me from your own insight into the entire terror organizations - do you have the Islamist terror group recruitment rolls, can you tell how the Arab street hates America any more today, How is it that by removing the Taliban and Al Qaedas principle base of operations and by eliminating the terrorist supporting government of Saddam Hussein (yes I think that terrorism against Jews is still terrorism) has increased the ammount of terrorism?

 

[BVS]

He gave them a common ground to fight on and for. Groups that didn't get along before are now fighting on the same side.

Maybe Bush really is a uniter.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Common Ground?

 

[BVS]

Did you see a front for this war before a year ago? Yes he created a common ground. Can you not see it?

 

[anitram]

I don't think Bush necessarily united them, but he did provide them with a new front where they could go wild.

However, the terrorists don't care who is president when it comes to their willingness to murder innocent people. I sincerely don't believe that Bush is the right person to fight terrorism long term, and that is something that involves a lot more than bombing deserts and alienating the global populace.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So the financiers are spending massive ammounts of money to undo Iraq and there are terrorists in the country being killed in large quantities, by opening up a new front Bush has diverted resources from the terrorist organizations and has forced them to fight somewhere else, when Iraq succeeds as a fledgling democracy and as the years turn to decades the fruits of this strategy will be there for all to see.

 

[BVS]

by opening up a new front Bush has diverted resources from the terrorist organizations and has forced them to fight somewhere else

Are you sure about this? They're killing innocent people, isn't there goal being served? They're killing more and more on a regular basis.