Do you think we will be safer and will the world be a better place if Sen. Kerry is elected?

[CADsortaGUY]

No, kerry will not provide a "safer" America or World if elected...IF we go back to the "law enforcement" mentality of pre-9/11. Yes, intel sharing and those sorts of things have been and should be continually increased and worked on and that much I believe kerry will attempt to do. But if kerry doesn't allow for unilateral action here and abroad via military or otherwise to protect us, our allies, and interests, then I don't believe he would be allowing for a safer America and/or world.
Those who say we making things more dangerous because of the "piss them off" notion aren't realizing one important fact - the terrorists already hate us and already wish to destroy us.

CkG

 

[Dissipate]

No, statism does not make the world a better place. In fact, it is an insidious disease that has infected society and would certainly be perpetuated to the extent (or greater extent) that it is now under Kerry OR Bush for that matter.

 

[Jhhnn]

The oppressed religious citizens want to establish their power and bring religion back to the forefront as exists in the other Arab nations.

Indeed, much as the "oppressed" Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists want to establish religious rule in this country. Not surprising that Dubya would support one and not the other... Any of us opposed to Theocratic rule will definitely be safer with Bush out of the Whitehouse.

Bush is trying to ram democracy down the throats of a milllennia-old culture.

Not at all- he's trying to impose a friendly compliant regime that can be represented as democratic in nature. It seems obvious that the first two conditions rule out the third, and that any government will, by necessity, have to ruthlessly repress some large segment of the population if the country is to remain intact. Too bad we couldn't just kiss and make up with Saddam- we'll end up with more of the same in humanitarian terms, and could have saved ourselves a lot of blood and money in the process... Despite Saddam's perversion of it, Baathism represents the most advanced popular political thought in the region, and contained the possibilities for evolutionary change not evident in theocratic government... We tossed out the baby with the bathwater in Iraq.

I doubt that the Syrians feel any safer, or the Iranians, or definitely the Palestinians. Dubya's roadmap merely marks the gravesites of their leaders assassinated with American Hellfire missiles fired from American helicopters. There are the Haitians, and the Venezuelans trying to maintain their sovereignty in the face of American interference. And a lot of other folks wondering who's next, and wtf the American people think is really happening.

"With us or against us" pretty much means that nobody's safe, even our friends are expendable, mere pawns in the Neocon game of world dominance...

And I'm sure Valerie Plame feels a lot safer, as do her foreign contacts, and anybody with a lick of fiscal sense probably feels great about the exploding federal debt, what with all the jobs being created and all...

Safe? we're never really safe, particularly from the homegrown malignancy currently running Congress and the Executive branches of Govt. Will Kerry make it better? Only if he can defuse the ticking bomb his predecessor left behind...

 

[Witling]

As the Prince of Wands said, ". . . prevent Kerry from doing anything monumentally stupid." Much as I hate the "But what about ____ [fill in the name of your favorite villan] ________, he said, telegraphing the punch. You mean, something stupid like invading Iraq? How are those WMDs? How is that Beacon of Democracy for the Middle East? Where are those grateful Iraqis?

 

[Riprorin]

Here's the Kerry plan:

Promote better intelligence and law enforcement, downplay military solutions, and criticize the current administration.

How is that going to make us safer?

Let's examine what George Bush as accomplished:

He's disrupted the terrorist network

He threw out the Taliban from Afghanistan

He ousted Saddam Hussein a man who had hid terrorists, tortured dissidents, thwarted U.N. inspections, paid off suicide bombers in Israel, and attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president.

He caused a turn around in Libya which is now negotiating various forms of international surrender.

Many predicted that we would be attacked again shortly after 9/11. Have we? No.

Not a bad record, imo.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Witling
As the Prince of Wands said, ". . . prevent Kerry from doing anything monumentally stupid." Much as I hate the "But what about ____ [fill in the name of your favorite villan] ________, he said, telegraphing the punch. You mean, something stupid like invading Iraq? How are those WMDs? How is that Beacon of Democracy for the Middle East? Where are those grateful Iraqis?

You know damn well that if the guy buried 40 or 50 planes theres a missile or 3 out there as well.

 

[Witling]

Nutso, yeah, 40 or 50 planes and some missles. No doubt. I wouldn't characterize those as WMDs. There are only a handful of countries that make modern fighter aircraft. They had to come from Russia, us, France, or England. What does the burried stuff have to do with the original theme of this post. Will the world be safer. IMO, it's hard to imagine anything more stupid than invading Iraq. See the questions I posed in my previous post.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Witling
Nutso, yeah, 40 or 50 planes and some missles. No doubt. I wouldn't characterize those as WMDs. There are only a handful of countries that make modern fighter aircraft. They had to come from Russia, us, France, or England. What does the burried stuff have to do with the original theme of this post. Will the world be safer. IMO, it's hard to imagine anything more stupid than invading Iraq. See the questions I posed in my previous post.

let's not forget the componets for WMD found in military storage facility. while your not forgetting that, do not forget many chem weapon componets(nerve and mustard gas componets were found) are not mixed until a short time before use.

actually invading iraq was a smart thing to do,(of course i do not expect a democrat to realize this...) madeline albright's(talk about a misnomer!) comments show this.

let's take a look at madeline albright does she see the big picture?

from fox news

She told a crowd at the Yale Divinity School (search) that her worries are in response to the president suggesting that "Americans have a unique relationship with God or a better understanding of God's will than worshippers from other cultures and lands."

"From the beginning, the president has made it clear that we are at war with the terrorists and not with Islam. That is to his credit," Albright said.

"(But) it surely doesn't help when the American military official with responsibility for intelligence on Al Qaeda (search) claims that 'We are in the Army of God' and that George Bush was 'appointed by God,"' she said. The comments were made by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (search), deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

Albright said she believed, as the Bush Administration did, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but she questioned the wisdom of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

first off, we see a twisting of the facts that would make dmcowen beam with pride. the comments she is remarking on WERE NOT MADE BY BUSH, but by a general. she then contradicts her opening statement by pointing out things that bush has actually said(repeatedly) to show he is not against islam itself...which is in direct opposition to her first statement.

"I did not believe there was a connection to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," Albright said. "I now do think that Iraq has become a magnet, a gathering ground for all various groups that hate us."

Albright testified last week before the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She said the Clinton administration used every tool it had to determine the right targets and acted when it could on the intelligence it had. [/i]

of course iraq is a "magnet" for terror! in part that is(in part) it's PURPOSE. much of the terrorists energy is spent making attacks over THERE rather than over HERE. plus the strategic value is immense. look at a map of the middle east, miss "albright".

as far as evidence iraq was involved, we have it. it is of course downplayed..after all, the dems have an election to win...at all costs.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
The world is becoming more dangerous, and it depends on who will get us there faster.

Albert Einstein once said "technological progess is like an ax in the mind of a psychotic murderer." Damn, how did he know?



I personally feel that as long as the US is supplying funds and arms to Israel, there will be no world peace no matter who's the president.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If so, why?

Because he isn't Bush.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Witling
Nutso, yeah, 40 or 50 planes and some missles. No doubt. I wouldn't characterize those as WMDs. There are only a handful of countries that make modern fighter aircraft. They had to come from Russia, us, France, or England. What does the burried stuff have to do with the original theme of this post. Will the world be safer. IMO, it's hard to imagine anything more stupid than invading Iraq. See the questions I posed in my previous post.

let's not forget the componets for WMD found in military storage facility. while your not forgetting that, do not forget many chem weapon componets(nerve and mustard gas componets were found) are not mixed until a short time before use.

Care to point out these chemical weapon components? Backup your claims with proof.

actually invading iraq was a smart thing to do,(of course i do not expect a democrat to realize this...) madeline albright's(talk about a misnomer!) comments show this.

let's take a look at madeline albright does she see the big picture?

from fox news

She told a crowd at the Yale Divinity School (search) that her worries are in response to the president suggesting that "Americans have a unique relationship with God or a better understanding of God's will than worshippers from other cultures and lands."

"From the beginning, the president has made it clear that we are at war with the terrorists and not with Islam. That is to his credit," Albright said.

"(But) it surely doesn't help when the American military official with responsibility for intelligence on Al Qaeda (search) claims that 'We are in the Army of God' and that George Bush was 'appointed by God,"' she said. The comments were made by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (search), deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

Albright said she believed, as the Bush Administration did, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but she questioned the wisdom of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

first off, we see a twisting of the facts that would make dmcowen beam with pride. the comments she is remarking on WERE NOT MADE BY BUSH, but by a general. she then contradicts her opening statement by pointing out things that bush has actually said(repeatedly) to show he is not against islam itself...which is in direct opposition to her first statement.

Uhh...your reading comprehension sucks!

She makes it clear she wasn't talking about George Bush having said "We are in the Army of God" and that George Bush was "appointed by God". She says it was "the American military official with responsibility for intelligence on Al Qaeda"

"I did not believe there was a connection to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," Albright said. "I now do think that Iraq has become a magnet, a gathering ground for all various groups that hate us."

Albright testified last week before the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She said the Clinton administration used every tool it had to determine the right targets and acted when it could on the intelligence it had. [/i]

of course iraq is a "magnet" for terror! in part that is(in part) it's PURPOSE. much of the terrorists energy is spent making attacks over THERE rather than over HERE. plus the strategic value is immense. look at a map of the middle east, miss "albright".

as far as evidence iraq was involved, we have it. it is of course downplayed..after all, the dems have an election to win...at all costs.

We have NO evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. IF there were, Bush would be touring the country and waving the documents in the air.

Show us this proof.

 

[MrYogi]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I believe Bush made the world an infinitely more dangerous place by invading Iraq and pissing the rest of the world off in the process.

:beer:

:beer::beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer:
:beer:

 

[digitalsm]

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.

So you are expecting a Kerry to be the first president of the modern era to do that? Thats what every US admin has been doing since the beginning of the 1900s. Considering Kerry is a CAREER politician, and as a Senator has received more money from special interests in the past 15 years, I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
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.

And the Clinton policy of using the court system and charging/prosecuting them with crimes sure worked swell.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: BDawg
It can't possibly be worse than it is with Dubbya at the helm.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
of course iraq is a "magnet" for terror! in part that is(in part) it's PURPOSE. much of the terrorists energy is spent making attacks over THERE rather than over HERE. plus the strategic value is immense. look at a map of the middle east, miss "albright".

as far as evidence iraq was involved, we have it. it is of course downplayed..after all, the dems have an election to win...at all costs.

We have NO evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. IF there were, Bush would be touring the country and waving the documents in the air.

Show us this proof.

Still waiting.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Riprorin


Law-enforcement is a tool to fight terrorism, it isn't a solution.

There's a solution to terrorism?

 

NO, what make you think he could do any better than Bush.

Its all special interest groups that run this country!

oil, drugs, defence, lumber, utilities, auto, steel, health care

Its all about money, who pays the most wins!

john

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
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.

And the Clinton policy of using the court system and charging/prosecuting them with crimes sure worked swell.

Not to mention that is factually incorrect, but since when is this thread about Clinton?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

I don't know if the world will be a better place if Sen. Kerry is president, but I am sure it will be a better place if Bush is no longer president. He has done more to help terrorist recruitment than just about anyone else.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
I don't know if the world will be a better place if Sen. Kerry is president, but I am sure it will be a better place if Bush is no longer president. He has done more to help terrorist recruitment than just about anyone else.

I'd vote for a poptart before I'd vote for Bush again. At least the poptart couldn't make the situation any worse.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Safer? Oh I am so scared to be an American I must go hide in my littlew cubbyhole and vote for the president that will protect me from the big bad bad people.
LOL I vote for who represents my view on more of the issues not for who makes me feel safer. Are you a coward?

 

[Ferocious]

Not sure about the world.

But I feel the USA would be a better place to live in without Bush, Ashcroft, and co.

 

[XZeroII]

I think it would be. However, this is only because Kerry would most likely follow the policy of just giving in to whatever the world (or UN) says. Not to bring up Clinton again, but this is why Clinton was so liked by the rest of the world. He did everything they told him to do at the expense of his own country. I think Kerry would do this as well.

Now that I've said that, I don't support Kerry because of this (one reason, anyway). I believe that we should be our own country and protect our own rights. The UN should not have more control over us than our own gov't. We are an independant nation and I believe we should go back to acting like it. Sure, the UN is good in concept, but it has been shown that everyone just looks out for #1. For this reason, we should look out for #1 as well. Look at the Iraq war. Iraq broke their terms of surrender many times. We gave them years and years to comply. What did the UN do? Nothing. Because france was profiting from Iraq and other countries didn't want to put forth the manpower. Everyone was looking out for #1. If Kerry gets in, say goodbye to your freedom because you will be living in the socialist states of the UN.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
Safer? Oh I am so scared to be an American I must go hide in my littlew cubbyhole and vote for the president that will protect me from the big bad bad people.
LOL I vote for who represents my view on more of the issues not for who makes me feel safer. Are you a coward?

Quite right.

It is the Bush administration that is banking on American fear--In fact, they unashamedly cultivate it--and their actions and policies reflect this strategy.