NationStates Jolt Archive

John Kerry promises to defend America if attacked, but does he have a plan to win the peace?

Seriously, does he want another 9/11 to happen before we have justification for going to war?

Yeah, apparently one wasn't enough for him. The whole point of defending yourself would be not GETTING attacked again.

It WILL have to happen again before people realize how inept John Kerry will be at leading the American People. If he wins the election, I am moving to Germany and becoming a citizen there.

It WILL have to happen again before people realize how inept John Kerry will be at leading the American People. If he wins the election, I am moving to Germany and becoming a citizen there.As my daddy used to say, "Don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good lord split ya."

And Paxania, since you raised the question linking Iraq and 9/11, care to explain how they're connected except in the fevered imagination of our Commander in Chief and the merry Neocons?

As my daddy used to say, "Don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good lord split ya."

And Paxania, since you raised the question linking Iraq and 9/11, care to explain how they're connected except in the fevered imagination of our Commander in Chief and the merry Neocons?

Where was Iraq and 9/11 linked in that post? I've read it several times, but dont see it.

Oh you mean "does he want another 9/11 to happen before we have justification for going to war?"

I dont think that's a "linking Iraq and 9/11". It's being proposed that preventing another 9/11-esque attack is important enough justification for war. I happen to agree.

So if hopelessly idiotic liberals like yourself want 3000 more innocent people to die before justifying going to war, may I suggest that you volunteer being one of those 3000? Solve alot of your problems it would I think.

So if hopelessly idiotic liberals like yourself want 3000 more innocent people to die before justifying going to war, may I suggest that you volunteer being one of those 3000? Solve alot of your problems it would I think.
if you are allowed to call liberals iditotic does that make it OK for me to call you an idiot. Go back to elementary school.

Now there's an argument!

John Kerry promises to defend America if attacked, but does he have a plan to win the peace?

Seriously, does he want another 9/11 to happen before we have justification for going to war?
Well I'm sure many people already answered, so I'll just say what Bush will do..

Bush's plan to win the peace: Non-existant
Bush waiting for a 9/11 to happen before needed justification for war: He got the 9/11, and STILL had no real justification for war.


It's really a matter of who's less evil.

Kerry opposes preemptive action. That's enough for me.

Now there's an argument!
yeah it was good wasnt it :)

Hopelessly idiotic? Because I understand that our country is less safe, our military less able to take care of trouble spots because we're tied down in a fucking war that had nothing to do with the people who attacked us? Because I know that there was about as much chance of Iraq attacking the US and killing our citizens as there is of Dick Cheney winning the bronze in Women's Synchronized Swimming in 2008? Because I know that the invasion of Iraq is a boondoggle that has damaged our international reputation and the ability of our military to respond to real crises around the world?

No no no--Paxania was invoking the very argument George W Bush used when he went into Iraq when he/she asked that question. Bush argued that there was no difference between Iraq and al Qaeda, that you couldn't separate the two. That has turned out to be painfully incorrect, and more than a thousand soldiers have died and more than 5 times that number have been wounded, many having lost limbs and worse to prove that very fact.

So don't try to defend a bullshit hypothetical question about what Kerry would do about a situation that doesn't and never did exist.

yeah it was good wasnt it

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/icons/icon14.gif

Hopelessly idiotic? Because I understand that our country is less safe, our military less able to take care of trouble spots because we're tied down in a fucking war that had nothing to do with the people who attacked us? Because I know that there was about as much chance of Iraq attacking the US and killing our citizens as there is of Dick Cheney winning the bronze in Women's Synchronized Swimming in 2008? Because I know that the invasion of Iraq is a boondoggle that has damaged our international reputation and the ability of our military to respond to real crises around the world?

No no no--Paxania was invoking the very argument George W Bush used when he went into Iraq when he/she asked that question. Bush argued that there was no difference between Iraq and al Qaeda, that you couldn't separate the two. That has turned out to be painfully incorrect, and more than a thousand soldiers have died and more than 5 times that number have been wounded, many having lost limbs and worse to prove that very fact.

So don't try to defend a bullshit hypothetical question about what Kerry would do about a situation that doesn't and never did exist.

I like the Cheney analogy. =)

George Bush had the CIA, MI6, Russia, Jordan (a nation that borders Iraq, in case you've forgotten), and more telling him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What choice would you make?

Kerry opposes preemptive action. That's enough for me.
Even worse, Jean Francois Kerry wants to ask France and other countries permission for the USA to defend itself. 'Nuff said.

George Bush had the CIA, MI6, Russia, Jordan (a nation that borders Iraq, in case you've forgotten), and more telling him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What choice would you make?
While i am an eternal optimist, i really cant quite believe that Bush etc really thought Iraq posed a credible threat to US security. After all even if the CIA said he had the weapons (even they werent that keen on the story) the UN weapons inspectors said he didnt and i would personally be inclined to believe them over the Jordanian government. Now maybe he was a threat to Israeli security or Saudi stability but that was never the argument.

While i am an eternal optimist, i really cant quite believe that Bush etc really thought Iraq posed a credible threat to US security. After all even if the CIA said he had the weapons (even they werent that keen on the story) the UN weapons inspectors said he didnt and i would personally be inclined to believe them over the Jordanian government. Now maybe he was a threat to Israeli security or Saudi stability but that was never the argument.
The inspectors never said that he didn't have weapons, they said they needed more time. Saddam, who was supposed to account for all of his WMD to the UN, produced a 10,000+ page dossier on them and still managed to leave some of his weapons (and what he did with them) out and failed to produce by the deadline, which only fueled the suspicion that he did indeed have WMD. If Saddam was going to be uncooperative like this, Bush & Co. thought that there wasn't any need to give inspectors more time...

The inspectors never said that he didn't have weapons, they said they needed more time. Saddam, who was supposed to account for all of his WMD to the UN, produced a 10,000+ page dossier on them and still managed to leave some of his weapons (and what he did with them) out and failed to produce by the deadline, which only fueled the suspicion that he did indeed have WMD. If Saddam was going to be uncooperative like this, Bush & Co. thought that there wasn't any need to give inspectors more time...And as it turned out, they were wrong, and because of it, over a thousand soldiers are dead, over 5,000 have been wounded, uncounted civilians are dead and wounded, our military is stuck someplace it doesn't need to be and therefore can't respond to other threats around the world--threats that are far more real than Hussein ever was--and, oh yeah, we still haven't caught the people who planned the 9/11 attack.

So what else could Bush have done? How about anything else.

Considering the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented EASILY (i.e. not letting some of the guys into the country who flew the planes, President Bush actually caring about a folder he recieved that stated Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the USA with planes, listening to M16 when they said the same thing) I don't think it would be hard to stop terroism.

And besides, Kerry's ideas of not invading other countries for oil actually stops terrosim before what Bush does. I mean, if the USA invaded MY country and did to my country what they did to Iraq (i.e. invade and destroy homes, abuse citizens in prison, bomb the hell out of random buildings) then I would probably blow myself up in a crowded place too. Don't you think that staying the hell out of other countries lives, instead of pissing them off with misbehavior, stupidity and lies would slow terroism?

There are ways to stop terroism without attacking countries, or having everyone in your country convert to Islam, and I believe that Kerry would be heading in the right direction, unlike Bush's last 4 years.

And as it turned out, they were wrong, and because of it, over a thousand soldiers are dead, over 5,000 have been wounded, uncounted civilians are dead and wounded, our military is stuck someplace it doesn't need to be and therefore can't respond to other threats around the world--threats that are far more real than Hussein ever was--and, oh yeah, we still haven't caught the people who planned the 9/11 attack.

So what else could Bush have done? How about anything else.
If he knew what the situation was going to be a year and a half from when he went in, he probably would and should have done something else, but he didn't and couldn't have known.

for any undecided voters browsing the forum, here's a partial answer to the question asked at the beginning of this thread. I'm not ashamed to show people John Kerry's policy directions, especially when it disproves those who say he doesn't have any




"As president, John Kerry will:
Identify high-priority chemical plants where a terrorist attack could cause massive loss of life;
Require adequate physical security around these plants, such as adequate security force, adequate fencing, and adequate surveillance;
Require the use of less dangerous chemicals and technologies whenever that is practicable; and,
Implement these requirements on a basis that allows companies to assess their vulnerabilities on an individualized basis, to implement their own plans to meet those vulnerabilities in light of local circumstances, and requires government enforcement and action only when industry fails to move first."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html

"Highly enriched uranium that can be used to create nuclear bombs is still used to fuel over 130 research reactors in more than 40 countries, many with only modest security. John Kerry's plan will remove potential bomb material provided by the Soviet Union and the United States from vulnerable sites outside the former Soviet Union within four years."
"Our goal must be to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program and permanently eliminate its enrichment and reprocessing efforts. All options must remain on the table to accomplish this. Any agreement must have rigorous verification, and must lead to complete and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Despite the obvious threat, for eighteen months we have negotiated largely over process while the North Koreans have reportedly made enough new bomb material for 6-9 new nuclear weapons. John Kerry believes we should continue the six party negotiations with the North Koreans, but also be willing to have direct bilateral talks. And we must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies."
"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

"John Kerry will establish a new strategic initiative dedicated to speeding drug and vaccine development, particularly in the 'valley of death' period between basic discovery and clinical trials. Bringing together leaders from the National Institutes of Health, research universities, and the private sector, this Strategic Drugs and Vaccine Initiative will have a mandate to identify the barriers to new drug and vaccine development and production, including regulatory requirements, liability issues, and intellectual property protections. Among other issues, the Initiative will consider reform of patent laws, such as those recently recommended by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as production of drugs or vaccines through direct contacts with private entities, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine. Kerry will put the recommendations of the Initiative on a fast track for approval by Congress. These measures will not only improve our bioterror preparedness --- they will also help speed the development of other drugs and vaccines, including measures to combat diseases that devastate the developing world."
"...Kerry will reconstiture international negotiations to strengthen the bioweapons ban, building on lessons from the United Nations inspections, visits to bioweapons facilities in the former Soviet Union and new trial inspections at government, university, and industrial facilities. He will push for implementation of a sensible and enforceable international law criminalizing the development, acquisition, possession, and use of biological weapons."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/bioterror.pdf

"Add 40,000 Troops To The Active Duty Army To Prevent And Prepare For Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, eight of the Army's ten active duty combat divisions are either in Iraq, preparing to go to Iraq, or recently returned from Iraq. While only a third of the Army would typically be deployed at any one time, under current deployment schedules 31 of our 33 active duty combat brigades will have been deployed by the summer of 2004."
"Streamline Various Large Weapons Programs, emphasizing electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a "systems of systems" approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral."
"Increase Active-Duty and Reserve Civil Affairs Personnel. As president, John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel - 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today's missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs personnel, including judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs, and so forth - the very skills that are needed in post-conflict situations. Active-duty civil affairs personnel provide "quick fix" support until the appropriate specialist teams from the reserves can be activated and deployed. John Kerry's plan represents a 50 percent increase in active-duty civil affairs personnel, and a 20 percent increase in reserve personnel."
"Invest In The Right Technologies. As president, John Kerry will focus defense investment in those capabilities vital to waging war successfully in the 21st Century. These include:
Advanced communications and information technologies, which will be vital to the full range of military capabilities
Sensing and control technologies that will provide the foundation for effective operation of unmanned, even robotic systems
Precision weapons, including directed energy weapons that can produce lethal and non-lethal effects
Data fusion technologies that will enable our military to act more decisively with enhanced situational awareness and greatly improved intelligence assessments"
"As president, John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter-proliferation units that specialize in finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us. These special units will be trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities. With these capabilities, future presidents will have practical, usable military capabilities against weapons of mass destruction rather than depending on new nuclear weapons."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html

"The war on terror requires good intelligence, yet many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. As part of a reform of our intelligence services, John Kerry will establish a true Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the nation's intelligence efforts, and he will establish a separate service within the Federal Bureau of Investigation dedicated to intelligence work. He will accelerate the improvement and integration of key watchlists and databases so they operate quickly and seamlessly. And he will give more security clearances to state and local officials and ensure that they get critical information quickly when they need it."
"At our ports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will improve loading facility security while improving the accuracy and timing of transmitted and shared data about contents, location, and chain of control regarding a container shipment. At our airports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will ensure adequate security for air cargo, tons of which goes uninspected today, and ensure that screenings at airports continue to become more effective. At our borders, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use technology and work with Canada and Mexico to improve border security while speeding up legal and secure passages across our border."
"Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide direct assistance to our police officers and firefighters to ensure that they have the communications systems, protective gear, and manpower they need to protect our communities. It will also modernize our emergency warning system to provide localized warnings, treat the fighters on the frontlines as partners, and provide all Americans with the information they need. To improve our ability to respond to a biological attack, John Kerry will put one individual in charge of our anti-bioterror efforts, set national benchmarks for state and local preparedness, and harness America's bioscience genius to increase drug and vaccine development."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

Considering the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented EASILY (i.e. not letting some of the guys into the country who flew the planes, President Bush actually caring about a folder he recieved that stated Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the USA with planes, listening to M16 when they said the same thing) I don't think it would be hard to stop terroism.

Is it the M16A1 or the M16A2 that was talking to the President? :) You are not one to say what President Bush did with that folder.

And besides, Kerry's ideas of not invading other countries for oil actually stops terrosim before what Bush does. I mean, if the USA invaded MY country and did to my country what they did to Iraq (i.e. invade and destroy homes, abuse citizens in prison, bomb the hell out of random buildings) then I would probably blow myself up in a crowded place too. Don't you think that staying the hell out of other countries lives, instead of pissing them off with misbehavior, stupidity and lies would slow terroism?

Random buildings? Abusing citizens? I'd like to think that the U.S. is targeting bunkers and command centers with its hyperaccurate supertechnology. For another thing, rogue soldiers who are now being court martialed abused prisoners. By the way, Kerry should stop running on conspiracy theoris. He once actually said that Dick Cheney's behind it all!

There are ways to stop terroism without attacking countries, or having everyone in your country convert to Islam, and I believe that Kerry would be heading in the right direction, unlike Bush's last 4 years.

Bush is making everyone convert to Islam?

Get with the program: terrorists hate America. Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996. Quote: "we regret to inform you you are the worst society in the history of the world." We cannot make these people stop, so the most effective thing is to go into countries that support and harbor them and destroy them.

If he knew what the situation was going to be a year and a half from when he went in, he probably would and should have done something else, but he didn't and couldn't have known.
If he'd listened to his top military advisors instead of the idiots who were telling him what he wanted to hear, then at the very least he'd have gone in with enough force to secure the country. Every one of the top people in the military told the Bush administration that we needed between 300 and 400,000 soldiers to do this right, but Rummy and the rest of the DoD (with a little help from Ahmad Chalabi) convinced him otherwise. He could have known, and dammit, he should have known. His own people were telling him, and he ignored his advice.

Bush deserves to be fired for incompetence more than anything else. Policy differences--that's just part of politics. Incompetence is inexcusable when we're talking about soldiers' lives and the safety of the United States, and Bush has been nothing but incompetent from the day he took office.

We didn't need 300-400k to take out Iraq. The amount we had was sufficient. There were problems immediately following securing everything, and even now we're reliant on local forces to a certain extent, but the massive cost and troop drain a doubling or tripling of troops in Iraq are worse than the consequences of having the minimal number of troops.

I am not voting for Bush because he will keep the PNAC folks in his cabinet. The Project for a New American Century stated in 1998 that when the "Pearl Harbor" event happened, we would need to immediately deal with that nation, and then proceed to Iraq. After Iraq, Iran and North Korea would follow. The goal was to make "you're next" coming from the PotUS the most feared words in the world.

Read it yourselves:
http://newamericancentury.org

Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and see how far Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney/Kristol/Jeb Bush etc. really wanted to take this.

Fortunately, it's going that far. They were wrong. Whew!

if you are allowed to call liberals iditotic does that make it OK for me to call you an idiot. Go back to elementary school.

If you look at every other post of mine besides the one in question, you will see I have never insulted anyone. I was attempting to point out, however, the insults being flung at conservatives by left leaning people, on these boards. I cant count how many times "neo-cons" and other attempts at insulting have been flung as if it were perfectly normal to do so. I was hoping to be "caught", hoping more so that it wouldnt be rather one sided.

And as it turned out, they were wrong, and because of it, over a thousand soldiers are dead, over 5,000 have been wounded, uncounted civilians are dead and wounded, our military is stuck someplace it doesn't need to be and therefore can't respond to other threats around the world--threats that are far more real than Hussein ever was--and, oh yeah, we still haven't caught the people who planned the 9/11 attack.

So what else could Bush have done? How about anything else.

Whether they were wrong or not hasnt been determined. The fact that WMD's havent been found yet doesnt mean there werent any. Kinda hard to prove a negative aint it.

And we have caught several of the people who planned 9/11. We just havent caught Bin Laden.

We didn't need 300-400k to take out Iraq. The amount we had was sufficient. There were problems immediately following securing everything, and even now we're reliant on local forces to a certain extent, but the massive cost and troop drain a doubling or tripling of troops in Iraq are worse than the consequences of having the minimal number of troops.We had enough to defeat Saddam's army. We did not have enough to provide the necessary security after the major operations against Saddam's army ended. Unless you consider the last year-plus to be a success in terms of security. Bush's military advisers all told him that they could win the war on the cheap, but they couldn't win the peace. They were right, and Bush ignored them, and now we've got a full-scale fuckup on our hands, and it ain't going to improve any time soon, no matter who's in the Oval Office, because it was handled stupidly from the beginning.

And all of this is really academic when we're talking about Bush's incompetence. The fact is that we didn't need to go into Iraq in the first place, and we couldn't afford to do it--we had other, more pressing matters on our hands at the time. You and I are talking about how many troops we should have sent into Iraq--fact is we shouldn't have sent any. We should have sent them to Afghanistan and finished that job, plain and simple.

Whether they were wrong or not hasnt been determined. The fact that WMD's havent been found yet doesnt mean there werent any. Kinda hard to prove a negative aint it.

And we have caught several of the people who planned 9/11. We just havent caught Bin Laden.

Just wait till october

Whether they were wrong or not hasnt been determined. The fact that WMD's havent been found yet doesnt mean there werent any. Kinda hard to prove a negative aint it.

And we have caught several of the people who planned 9/11. We just havent caught Bin Laden.
Oh yes it has been determined. There aren't any in the terms as they were described by this administration. As to the proving a negative--that's pretty much what Bush was trying to force Hussein to do wasn't it? Prove he didn't have any more WMD? Yeah. Sucks when it's your guy, don't it.

I think we should move more troops into Afghanistan, particularly from South Korea and Germany. And relatively speaking, the past year or so hasn't been all that bad for security, at least compared to the potential - if some of the worst months had been a year-round occurance. Terrorism and guerilla fighting is a problem, but numbers alone would only provide the insurgents with more targets, Vietnam rings a bell as to how more numbers won't quell the storm.

Get with the program: terrorists hate America. Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996. Quote: "we regret to inform you you are the worst society in the history of the world." We cannot make these people stop, so the most effective thing is to go into countries that support and harbor them and destroy them.


Terrorism, as I have stated before in other posts, is not a person, place, country or thing. It is a TACTIC. Can you discourage use of a tactic? Of course. That's not the issue here.

You say "terrorists hate America". Although that's a VERY broad statement, yes, its true in context with those who attack us. But why? Don't believe a damn thing our so-called President says. Its not because they "hate our freedoms". It has nothing to do with our freedoms.

If you believe what Bush says, then this following piece of mock-dialogue would not be far from the truth...

TERRORIST 1: "I hate America!"
TERRORIST 2: "Why?"
TERRORIST 1: "Well...umm...because...they've got freedoms!"
TERRORIST 2: "OMFG!!! YESSIR, WE'LL ATTACK AT DAWN!!!"

The blindingly obvious flaw here is that most sane human beings (and even rather insane ones) need a real reason to declare war, not to convince themselves, but to convince others why they should join them. There has to be some set sequence of events to set this in motion. If our country has done nothing wrong, then why are we being attacked both militarily and verbally across the globe? Who are we to say that we are always in the absolute right? Participating in a war does not absolutism make.

It has to do with the fact that we have blatant disregard for Arab culture and politics. We have a long history of interfering in Arab affairs and with appalling results. Push someone around long enough, they're bound to push back.

I am not opposed to us defending ourselves, having been a military man myself. It is the sovereign right of every nation to defend itself and its people. I'm just trying to put all of this into perspective

My point here is that we seem more concerned now with installing democracies throughout the middle east for our own monetary benefit than we are with finding the supposed perpetrator of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden. President Bush himself said that "Bin Laden is not a priority" once the talk started about toppling Hussein, who had no relevant ties to Bin Laden, and not to mention still no NBC weapons (no, not the TV station - its the actual military term for Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons. The acronym "WMD" is a buzzword created by reporters).


Stroudania :sniper:

I think we should move more troops into Afghanistan, particularly from South Korea and Germany. And relatively speaking, the past year or so hasn't been all that bad for security, at least compared to the potential - if some of the worst months had been a year-round occurance. Terrorism and guerilla fighting is a problem, but numbers alone would only provide the insurgents with more targets, Vietnam rings a bell as to how more numbers won't quell the storm.

I think that we should line the troops up on our borders. We should have army bases every few-hudred miles. We should pull our policemen-troops from around the world and differ money from bombs to intelligence. We should take 3/4ths of our military budget and spend it on building these bases and bombarding terrorists with spies. They won't even leave thier countries; and even if they do- We'll bomb the crap out of them when the try to get here.

Oh yes it has been determined. There aren't any in the terms as they were described by this administration. As to the proving a negative--that's pretty much what Bush was trying to force Hussein to do wasn't it? Prove he didn't have any more WMD? Yeah. Sucks when it's your guy, don't it.

Bush wasnt trying to force Hussein to do anything... except follow UN resolutions. Remember those? I thought not. All Saddam had to do was allow unfettered access (Oh no, you cant search my presidential palaces) and to account for all of the WMD's he had, account for what he did with them. He failed to do this.

No, we havent proven that there weren't any WMD's... all we've managed to do is prove we cant find them. They could be buried out in the desert somewhere (unlikely), they could be in some other country (much more likely). What we do know is where they aren't.

Bush wasnt trying to force Hussein to do anything... except follow UN resolutions.

You may have a case of short-term memory. Do you remember when Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors in? Do you remember when Bush seemed to want this, but then gave the world an ultimatum: "you're either with us or not." People protested the abandonment of the UN resolutions, but Bush didn't care. Days later, virtually alone, he declared war on Iraq.

I think we should move more troops into Afghanistan, particularly from South Korea and Germany. And relatively speaking, the past year or so hasn't been all that bad for security, at least compared to the potential - if some of the worst months had been a year-round occurance. Terrorism and guerilla fighting is a problem, but numbers alone would only provide the insurgents with more targets, Vietnam rings a bell as to how more numbers won't quell the storm.
It might not quell the storm now, but it would have smothered it at the beginning had they been there. And the past year has been an utter disaster for security. To say otherwise is to hide from the truth.

Afghanistan is even more of a mess. The last "election" was rife with fraud--more people voted than were registered to vote, for crying out loud. We don't make those kinds of mistakes, not even in Florida. And Karzai was talking to the Taliban just a few weeks ago, asking them to take part in the new government to help bring stability to the region. The fucking Taliban!

That's why I say things about Bush's incompetence. If we'd done the job right in Afghanistan to begin with, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of shit, and if we hadn't gone into Iraq, we'd have had the necessary resources to do the job right in Afghanistan. Now we've done neither job right, and it's been blowing up in our faces ever since.

Bush wasnt trying to force Hussein to do anything... except follow UN resolutions. Remember those? I thought not. All Saddam had to do was allow unfettered access (Oh no, you cant search my presidential palaces) and to account for all of the WMD's he had, account for what he did with them. He failed to do this.

No, we havent proven that there weren't any WMD's... all we've managed to do is prove we cant find them. They could be buried out in the desert somewhere (unlikely), they could be in some other country (much more likely). What we do know is where they aren't.
The reason for war with Iraq was never over whether or not the WMD existed--it was over the threat they supposedly posed. Buried in the desert isn't exactly a threat, now is it? But more importantly, we were told, over and over again, that not only did Hussein have WMD, but that they were poised to threated the US itself (a lie), that he was ready to use them at a moment's notice (another lie), and most importantly that we knew where they were. Turns out we didn't really know if he had them in the first place, and all indications are, now, that he didn't, that the 1998 bombing campaign pretty much took out whatever remaining capability he had.

Got to hand it to you: When you get it wrong, you get it catastophicaly wrong.


"THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, "9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance," and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

The second of those stories came as part of the wide wave of media coverage that dismissed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection after a 9/11 Commission staff statement concluded that the available evidence did not suggest a "collaborative relationship." The staff statement was poorly worded and vague, and reporters long dubious of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship trumpeted the findings as definitive proof that the Bush administration had exaggerated the connection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the staff statement was the "most complete and authoritative dismissal" of the Bush case on Iraq-al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp

Got to hand it to you: When you get it wrong, you get it catastophicaly wrong.


"THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, "9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance," and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

The second of those stories came as part of the wide wave of media coverage that dismissed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection after a 9/11 Commission staff statement concluded that the available evidence did not suggest a "collaborative relationship." The staff statement was poorly worded and vague, and reporters long dubious of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship trumpeted the findings as definitive proof that the Bush administration had exaggerated the connection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the staff statement was the "most complete and authoritative dismissal" of the Bush case on Iraq-al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp
Got that bolded part there? That's the important part--no collaborative relationship. And let me suggest that Kean is a little out of line to say there was no question in "our minds" when the 9/11 report is the collaborative effort. There may have been no question in his mind, but unless he's suddenly become Karnak the Magnificent, he has no right to speak for the minds of everyone on the panel, especially when the collaborative statement contradicts him.

Got to hand it to you: When you get it wrong, you get it catastophicaly wrong.


"THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, "9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance," and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

The second of those stories came as part of the wide wave of media coverage that dismissed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection after a 9/11 Commission staff statement concluded that the available evidence did not suggest a "collaborative relationship." The staff statement was poorly worded and vague, and reporters long dubious of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship trumpeted the findings as definitive proof that the Bush administration had exaggerated the connection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the staff statement was the "most complete and authoritative dismissal" of the Bush case on Iraq-al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp
See that bolded part there? The was a relationship between the two. Wether you can wrap you mind around it or not, they were involved with each other.

See that bolded part there? The was a relationship between the two. Wether you can wrap you mind around it or not, they were involved with each other.There's a relationship between the US and al Qaeda as well--we're enemies. There's a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban that we don't seem to give two shits about anymore. "Relationship" is a very vague term--it can mean any connection, no matter how dubious or vague. You and I have a relationship through this forum, for crying out loud--what the hell does that mean in real terms? I'll tell you--not a goddamn thing. But a collaborative relationship does mean something, and that's not the kind of relationship that Iraq and al Qaeda had.

There's a relationship between the US and al Qaeda as well--we're enemies. There's a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban that we don't seem to give two shits about anymore. "Relationship" is a very vague term--it can mean any connection, no matter how dubious or vague. You and I have a relationship through this forum, for crying out loud--what the hell does that mean in real terms? I'll tell you--not a goddamn thing. But a collaborative relationship does mean something, and that's not the kind of relationship that Iraq and al Qaeda had.
So when you liberals scream that there was no realtionship between the two, were you lying, or just plain wrong?

So when you liberals scream that there was no realtionship between the two, were you lying, or just plain wrong?Neither--there was no collaborative relationship between the two, and that's the kind of relationship the President and his administration were attempting to argue existed. Get over it FoB--your side is on the wrong end of this issue, just like they're on the wrong end of so many these days.

Neither--there was no collaborative relationship between the two, and that's the kind of relationship the President and his administration were attempting to argue existed. Get over it FoB--your side is on the wrong end of this issue, just like they're on the wrong end of so many these days.
Is that why we are the majority in this nation, hold a majority of the offices, and will retatin those offices, and gain some, Nov. 2.

Is that why we are the majority in this nation, hold a majority of the offices, and will retatin those offices, and gain some, Nov. 2.
One--you're not a majority in the nation. At best, you're a plurality, and the next election will see if you even hold onto that status, assuming you have it now.

Two--While you do currently hold a majority of offices in the federal system, whether or not you retain them is another matter. If you actually gain some, it will be the greatest surprise in the history of politics. Again, November will tell the tale.

If you actually gain some, it will be the greatest surprise in the history of politics.
Kind of like November 2002.

Kind of like November 2002.November 2002 was no surprise if you were paying attention. The Democrats who won were Democrats with strong messages about themselves. The ones who lost--with the exception of Max Cleland, who was slimed beyond reason by Saxby Chambliss, and Erskine Bowles who was up against a carpetbagging media powerhouse in Liddy Dole--lost because they were trying to be Republican-lite. It was their own fault, and it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention.

November 2002 was no surprise if you were paying attention. The Democrats who won were Democrats with strong messages about themselves. The ones who lost--with the exception of Max Cleland, who was slimed beyond reason by Saxby Chambliss, and Erskine Bowles who was up against a carpetbagging media powerhouse in Liddy Dole--lost because they were trying to be Republican-lite. It was their own fault, and it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention.
Max Cleland is a scummy bastard. He wasn't slimed. Are you going to say his patriotism was challenged too? Maybe that is personal flaw with democrats. Any attack on them is an attack on their patriotism, cuz deep down, they know the have none, and hate America.

Max Cleland is a scummy bastard. He wasn't slimed. Are you going to say his patriotism was challenged too? Maybe that is personal flaw with democrats. Any attack on them is an attack on their patriotism, cuz deep down, they know the have none, and hate America.Oh, I'd say comparing a man to Osama Bin Laden in a campaign ad is slimy. I wouldn't even do that to Cheney. It's a bullshit attack, and you know it.

Oh, I'd say comparing a man to Osama Bin Laden in a campaign ad is slimy. I wouldn't even do that to Cheney. It's a bullshit attack, and you know it.
I would think that comparing a man to the bright young man running for the senate in Illinois would be a compliment.

I would think that comparing a man to the bright young man running for the senate in Illinois would be a compliment.How pathetic. :rolleyes:

How pathetic. :rolleyes:
Now he is not pathetic. He did physically assualt Alan Keyes, but Osama seems like a nice man.

Now he is not pathetic. He did physically assualt Alan Keyes, but Osama seems like a nice man.No no--since you're obviously too dense to get it, you are the pathetic one. It's sad, really, that your ideas are so weak, and your evidence so non-existent, that all you can do is make phony associations and mock peoples' names. Sad, but not unexpected.

Is it the M16A1 or the M16A2 that was talking to the President? :) You are not one to say what President Bush did with that folder.

Well, obviously he did nothing with the folder that was given to him, otherwise September 11 would have been prevented, or if not then Bush would have at least reacted after hearing that a plane had hit the twin towers instead of reading "My Pet Goat." And yes I know that he was given the damn folder, Condelezza Rice explained it herself, dumb bitch.

Does it matter which one was talking to the President? Well it does, if you are trying to avoid that fact, which you are.


Random buildings? Abusing citizens? I'd like to think that the U.S. is targeting bunkers and command centers with its hyperaccurate supertechnology.

I'd like to think that too, but I can't, seeing as it's not true. Haven't you seen the pictures of American soldiers invading homes of people that have nothing to do with anything? Haven't you seen the pictures of destroyed buildings with crying citizens stranded outside them, wondering why the hell this happened to them? No, you haven't seen them, or you are ignoring them. Or, you could be right, that ALL of these people are lying - but I don't think you are right. Because the US has been wrong before with it's targeting. Remember the incident where a hotel was blown up with journalists inside? The US said that it was because someone had shot a missle at them from it. But someone called Paul Walker who was inside the building at the time proved this 'theory' wrong by saying that the missle could not have gone the length that they said it did, and proved it too. He also pointed out that there was no shot fired because no one heard it, and because of the amount of journalists there were in the building it would have been recorded or at least heard. But it wasn't, because it didn't exist. How about the other time America was wrong? You bombarded a place that you said had some major terriosts, and then it was shown to be a wedding. I mean come on. After incidents like these, you really expect ANYONE to believe in America's superior targeting system? That you know where all the terroists are? Face it, most people's homes you invade and destroy have nothing to do with the 'cause' you fight, and that is precisely why people get so angry at America over there in Iraq.


For another thing, rogue soldiers who are now being court martialed abused prisoners.

Yeah, but it wasn't just one or two, was it. It was a whole platoon full and more are still being discovered. And let's be honest here - even if they are convicted, which they probably won't be, there will be no real sentance or punishment. There was a case a little while ago that was kept quiet about a guy who was on a routine flight. He came over a place and saw little lights flashing below him, and recognised it as gunfire. He then radioed his superiors, who ordered him NOT to do anything, just leave. So he bombs the place instead. The reason why he wasn't supposed to bomb them? Because they weren't Iraqis trying to get him - they were Canadians, on a training exercise. He killed 8 of them and wounded 16. He was tried an convicted. His punishment? Wait for it, you'll love this - he was FINED $5000. I mean really. If you can offer that kind of justice for your allies - what kind of justice are you going to offer for your enemies?



By the way, Kerry should stop running on conspiracy theoris. He once actually said that Dick Cheney's behind it all!

I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. I mean it's not like Bush is actually smart or anything. I am surprised at your attitude towards this. I mean Bush has spread a conspiricy theory about Kerry that has no real facts or evidence around it (which is why it's called a smear campaign) and yet you have the guts to diss Kerry about something as trivial and stupid as that?



Bush is making everyone convert to Islam?

No, I just thought it would be an idea to combat terroism. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. (No I don't think this is a good idea, it was just an idea I had).



Get with the program: terrorists hate America.

Yes but so does everyone else.