NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally waging war on a noun has me a bit concerned, but since we are in it, how do we win. Contrast the opposing viewpoints, Bush/Kerry.

I do NOT mean the war in Iraq here. This war of distraction has taken us away from the real issue. I want to return to it.

From what I understand, here are the candidates stances (please I know I am biased and it will probably show):

Bush: More of the same, keep plugging away, raising the occasional terrorist alert and do?????????????? To tell the truth, I don't know what his plan is, he doesn't mention it, only mentions that he is making America stronger and safer(when he isnt stating that we are in danger).

Kerry: Increase relations with other nations and bring them back into the fold. Use their intelligence and regional expertise to strengthen our intelligence and reach. Double the special forces, as these are the guys best suited to rooting out and killing terrorists, doing covert ops. Increase military tech, to give those special ops the best tools to do their job.

Seems to me like you've already answered your own question, vote Kerry in 04!

The first thing you do is stop warring on a noun. You define your enemies in such a way that you can defeat them. We're battling al Qaeda, plain and simple.

To defeat al Qaeda, I think we need a two-pronged attack. First, we need to go after their monetary sources--that will cripple them as far as their ability to project power is concerned. It will make them a local problem instead of an international problem.

Secondly, we need to stop being assholes internationally. We need to be fair dealers in the Israeli/Palestinian issue; we need to stop supporting regimes like the Saudis and the Egyptians; and we need to put more domestic emphasis on conservation and energy independence.

This isn't going to win the war on al Qaeda all by itself, but it's a good start.

It is interesting how Kerry presents his campaign.

He claims that is is for the common and poor person. This is just Bull S**t. This man has never been poor and has never had a real home. He has gone around and lived with his parents in fancy hotel rooms, and he has never had the feeling of being remotely poor. His new, richer wife is almost the same way. she claims that she feels that she should reach out and help the struggling people get job. SHE HAS NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HER LIFE. She has always been rich. Then she married that Heinz(?) guy for the sole purpose.

Another reason that Kerry is bad is that he has been grooming himself for the Presidency all of his life. He deliberatly brought along a camera to Veitnam to get good shots of his quickly swelling ego at this time. he is a power hungry idiot that, if he gets into office, will not know what to do and we will have another Clinton. Not the scandal, but the complete ignorance to the on thing that the President should worry about. THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION. Clinton let that all go to pot during his time. He spent no money on Intellegence and military equipment. He also did not act on the knowledge that, however misinformed, that Suddam Hussein, a known enemy of this nation, had weapons of mass destruction. This is the same information that Bush took to heart and did what he was put in office to do. Defend the nation.

I have no chance to write anymore, but know this. This evidence against Kerry accounts to more than he is telling us about himself.

The President does not have to help each individual person, But Bush is helping us more than Kerry, who will not lower himself to personally give money, not earned by himself alone, intothe pockets of those unfortunate people who will never know what it is like to be him, and he will never be part of.

The only way to win the so called war on terror is to stop pretending to be better than other people. If westerners (OK i really mean americans) dropped the whole moral superiority thing and admitted that everyone on the earth was equally worth of respect then there would be less cause for terrorism. Of course in order to be believable, there would also need to be action as well as words, something along the lines of significant resource transfer to the worlds poorer nations would probably do the trick.

Nothing of consequence.Yawn.

Here's a novel idea for you--try actually responding to the question in the thread instead of regurgitating Republican talking points.