• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My support for Kerry

Smaug

Senior member
My support for Kerry is based off a simple idea, I want our nation to be more secure.

Yet Bush seems to be running on the same platform, too bad his version of it is a lie.

In the years since 9/11 we as a nation have become less secure. Terrorism worldwide is going up, our newly created "Department of Homeland Security" is a big beurocratic mess, and we have an administration that is not focusing on the terrorist threat.

Issue 1: The response post 9/11. We went after Afghanistan, but never got troops in, in time to capture critical Al Queda leadership. We then managed to leave less then 10,000 troops, to manage an entire country, and to provide 52$ per person in aid per year. To compare, Bosnia got close to a 1000$.

Issue 2: Iraq. In a war on terrorism, guns are often the worse weapons to use. We see this in chechnya, the longer the conflict goes, the more determined the other side gets. We did not beat Russia by fighting it, we out idealized Russia. In a sense, Iraq proves Al-Queda right, about invasion of arab countries by the US, and serves as a national recruiting poster. Sure, we cannot pull out now, but we should not have been there.

Issue 3: Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. These are all countries that are very unstable, and are teaching intolerance and hate. Instead of using the goodwill post 9/11 with them, we squandered it on Iraq. That 80 billion dollars a year could have funded secular, open education, instead of our oil money going to fund madrasses.

Issue 4: Our homeland. Our homeland security is key. By homeland security I do not mean an Alert system, but proper funding, proper training. We are not prepared for a massive attack, especially with WMD on our soil, even 3 years afterwards.

When after 9/11 we should have partnered up and gone after the terrorists, militarily, and idea wise. We should have raised taxes and defended our people. In the end what happened? We invaded a country that did not commit what we said it did, a country with a wealth of oil, just as Bin-Laden predicted. We told our people the best thing we can do is shop, and lowered taxes, as well as laid off 4000 New York City cops.

I don't know how John Kerry can be worse, but I know how he can be better. He believes that we should not open up Firehouses in Baghdad while closing them here.

He understands the commitment to homeland security and that is why he has my vote.
 
Issue 1: The response post 9/11. We went after Afghanistan, but never got troops in, in time to capture critical Al Queda leadership. We then managed to leave less then 10,000 troops, to manage an entire country, and to provide 52$ per person in aid per year. To compare, Bosnia got close to a 1000$.
And democratic idealogues wanted more diplomacy, wrung their hands that we'd get spanked like the russians, and called it vietnam. interesting on the $1,000/$52 issue. Is that total money, or US money? I suspect Europe kicked in quite a bit of money for Bosnia...

Issue 2: Iraq. In a war on terrorism, guns are often the worse weapons to use. We see this in chechnya, the longer the conflict goes, the more determined the other side gets. We did not beat Russia by fighting it, we out idealized Russia. In a sense, Iraq proves Al-Queda right, about invasion of arab countries by the US, and serves as a national recruiting poster. Sure, we cannot pull out now, but we should not have been there.
Interesting analogy - of course Russia never attacked us either. Idealogy goes out the window when someone sticks a knife in you.

Issue 3: Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. These are all countries that are very unstable, and are teaching intolerance and hate. Instead of using the goodwill post 9/11 with them, we squandered it on Iraq. That 80 billion dollars a year could have funded secular, open education, instead of our oil money going to fund madrasses.
These countries were teaching the same hate before, during, and after 9/11. Do you think any of those countries would take our money and fund secular schools with them?

Issue 4: Our homeland. Our homeland security is key. By homeland security I do not mean an Alert system, but proper funding, proper training. We are not prepared for a massive attack, especially with WMD on our soil, even 3 years afterwards.
I agree. Good issue to lobby on. Kerry has not.

 
Responding to you, Point 1 The money is total money, US funding was close to 500, still almost 10x more.

On number 2, sure Russia never attacked us directly, but then what was Korea and Vietnam?

On number 3, the countries as a rule don't teach the hate, they don't like the hate because the leadership is often the target. It's an issue of replacing viewpoints.

On number 4, he has it on his website, but he hasn't targeted it as much as he should.
 
Smaug, that was a superb speech, and delivered with such passion. I'll be sure to think about it when I'm pulling the lever for Badnarik, and again when I'm watching Bush get sworn in.
 
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Smaug, a very well thought out post, and great points. Nice to see some real content on here.

You guys are new here, aren't you? 😉

I was once young and optimistic about the P&N boards. Then I realized there are a core of entrenched neocons that do not have a basic understanding of logic and reason and are too old to learn.

It was then I decided to stoop to their level of rhetoric. It's quick, easy, and they respond to it just as they would respond as any reasonable post: with furious partisan hatred.

Cheers.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I was once young and optimistic about the P&N boards. Then I realized there are a core of entrenched neocons that do not have a basic understanding of logic and reason and are too old to learn.

It was then I decided to stoop to their level of rhetoric. It's quick, easy, and they respond to it just as they would respond as any reasonable post: with furious partisan hatred.

Cheers.

Or in other words, since they don't agree with your viewpoint then they must be wrong...nice.
 
Back
Top