Do you think we will be safer and will the world be a better place if Sen. Kerry is elected?
- Thread starter Riprorin
- Start date
As a matter of fact, yes I do. The current administration is without checks and balances...there's too much control by too few. I won't argue the plans and choices of the administration, I'll only say that there's far too much control right now by republicans and PNACers.
Should Kerry win election, there will be division in government. The established administration will have enough control remaining to prevent Kerry from doing anything monumentally stupid (although left on his own I'm sure he'd try), while Kerry will oppose the unifed movement that's been going for the last 4 years. After 4 more years kerry will have weakened the current administration, and likely worn out his welcome with others as well and there can an open and honest election where we can begin to rebuild our federal direction.
Should Bush remain in office, I have very little doubt that he will continue to divide the country, to a point of possible armed revolution or simply assassination, which in the end might have 'martyr value' and thus plunge our nation even further into the abyss it's been stumbling towards. Just by removing him we gain strength and stability, and therefore safety. At least long enough for us to catch our breath and begin anew in a few more years.
Should Kerry win election, there will be division in government. The established administration will have enough control remaining to prevent Kerry from doing anything monumentally stupid (although left on his own I'm sure he'd try), while Kerry will oppose the unifed movement that's been going for the last 4 years. After 4 more years kerry will have weakened the current administration, and likely worn out his welcome with others as well and there can an open and honest election where we can begin to rebuild our federal direction.
Should Bush remain in office, I have very little doubt that he will continue to divide the country, to a point of possible armed revolution or simply assassination, which in the end might have 'martyr value' and thus plunge our nation even further into the abyss it's been stumbling towards. Just by removing him we gain strength and stability, and therefore safety. At least long enough for us to catch our breath and begin anew in a few more years.
I believe it will be a safer place. Little countries won't have to worry as much about big countries attacking them.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Possibly, although it seems somewhat doubtful. Looking forward, it Bush & co. seem pretty content to have taken Iraq out and to leave it at that... I don't know if Bush has enough political capital to pursue another combat scenario unless its a direct reponse to an attack. It's also equally possible that Kerry might embrace a hyper-aggressive stance to counter the accusation/suspicions of many that "Democrats are soft on defense." So it's entirely possible that we are at greater risk of getting into yet another conflict with a President Kerry in office than we are if President Bush stays in office.
No way to tell, really.
We can only hope a Kerry administration would be less corrupt, less criminal, less self-serving, less deceitfull, less beholding to corporate interests, more transparent, more interested in real solutions that address the root issues, and not just narrow-minded, short-term, cosmetic stabs-in-the-dark at symptoms.
Overall, I'm hoping for more intelligent, long-range, well thoughtout domestic and foreign policies, that will be in the best interest of most Americans.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
I am convinced that the Bush administration is incapable, or unwilling, or both.
It is very unfortunate that our political system, as it has evolved to what we have today--is completely broken.
What we have, in-essence, is a a one party system--made up of two factions. It truly is an unholy marrige. The fix is in--no democracy, no accountability.
We can only hope a Kerry administration would be less corrupt, less criminal, less self-serving, less deceitfull, less beholding to corporate interests, more transparent, more interested in real solutions that address the root issues, and not just narrow-minded, short-term, cosmetic stabs-in-the-dark at symptoms.
Overall, I'm hoping for more intelligent, long-range, well thoughtout domestic and foreign policies, that will be in the best interest of most Americans.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
I am convinced that the Bush administration is incapable, or unwilling, or both.
It is very unfortunate that our political system, as it has evolved to what we have today--is completely broken.
What we have, in-essence, is a a one party system--made up of two factions. It truly is an unholy marrige. The fix is in--no democracy, no accountability.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
CIA warns Iraq headed towards Civil war
If war breaks out it will likely destabilize the entire middle east, it's a worse possible scenario. Everyone will blame America, and there will be enough Al Qaeda recruits for the next 100 years.
If war breaks out it will likely destabilize the entire middle east, it's a worse possible scenario. Everyone will blame America, and there will be enough Al Qaeda recruits for the next 100 years.
World will be a better place, because Kerry is an internationalist. Most of rest of the world can't stand Bush, and that's hurting us diplomatically.
This Iraq war split the international coalition against terror, and we need to mend fences, but Bush can't do it, which is disappointing considering how effective his father was.
This Iraq war split the international coalition against terror, and we need to mend fences, but Bush can't do it, which is disappointing considering how effective his father was.
Senator Kerry has offered his own prescription by saying the following about the war on terrorism:
"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world ? the very thing this administration is worst at...and I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make Americans safer than they are."
Will promoting better intelligence and law enforcement reduce the threat of terrorism as Kerry suggests?
"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world ? the very thing this administration is worst at...and I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make Americans safer than they are."
Will promoting better intelligence and law enforcement reduce the threat of terrorism as Kerry suggests?
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
The tragedy at the core of 9/11 was a failure of both law enforcement and intelligence, they had information about the attacks, they had identities of the terrorist flagged, there was incredible amount of terrorist chatter on alarmingly levels... but not once did they share this intelligence with each other. Hence, 9/11 happened.
So I completely agree with Kerry about law enforcement.
That's what I've been saying for months!
Civil War is almost inevitable. The oppressed religious citizens want to establish their power and bring religion back to the forefront as exists in the other Arab nations. Bush is trying to ram democracy down the throats of a milllennia-old culture.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
Bush and his Reagan era administration think they can fight terrorists like they fought the Soviets, with brute force and massive arm buildups. It doesn't work, terrorism isn't an foe holding a gun. It's an idea akined to a virus, like a virus the idea spreads especially in very suscepitible areas like the middle east whose society is already sick.
Terrorism is more like a disease or organized crime than a monolithic military threat that can be beaten as the Soviets were. I believe the presidents approach will lock us in a cycle of escalating violence rather than adressing the source of terrorism.
Pre. Bush was in office for 8 months prior to 9/11. No one's arguing that we need better intelligence, but are you suggesting that the problems with the intelligence system were his fault?
Law-enforcement is a tool to fight terrorism, it isn't a solution.
What would better law-enforcement have done to prevent the planning and execution of the attack against us and the use of rogue host states to train and finance the terrorists?
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
I don't fault Bush for not changing the system around in 8 months, but rather how he handled terrorism when it was presented to him. Richard Clarke, and George Tenet, the entire Clinton team told them essentially "terrorism is a top priority, bin laden is a top priority". Bush didn't even blink twice, Clarke and Tenet repeatedly said that "terrorist attack imminent" everyday for months before September. They didnt formulate a plan, not even held a meeting, nada.
Then when it happened, it was like "Find someway to blame Iraq".
First off let's be clear about something. Iraq has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. It is however a rogue state, just like North Korea.
Al Qaeda florishes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia... OUR allies. Thats a different problem altogether. Know the distinction.
Your right, law enforcement isnt the way to solve terrorism. That takes cooperating with our allies, the UN, France and Germany, and the rest of the world. Making peace between Isreal and Palestine, etc. Miliatary action in some instances like Afghanistan, then maybe Pakistan, and eventually Saudia Arabia.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter