NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as he'd STILL have to deal with the total mess in Iraq (plus trying to fix that mess, not just saying that "we're doing fine"), how much devotion would be diffused to the War on Terror? Would it be a significant difference?

I guess it'd be naive to hope he'd put an end to that sham.

The Bush administration has done a lot to limit what can be done in the next 4 years. I don't think anyone would be able to make any very significant changes, although Kerry might be able to build more international support for the U.S.

I am sorry but your poll is flawed
u do not have options for positive v negative change

Yes, it would. Kerry would just flop again and be unwilling to support the war on terror without the uN's backing (which is not going to happen). Ugh.
I hate kerry.
* :sniper: kerry*

Since Kerry would rely almost entirely on the UN- an organization that is itself loaded with terrorist nations and terrorist sympathizers- to help fight the War on Terror, it would obviously be doomed to failure.

I am sorry but your poll is flawed
u do not have options for positive v negative change

I didn't ask if it would be positive or negative. So how is it flawed?

Yes, it would. Kerry would just flop again and be unwilling to support the war on terror without the uN's backing (which is not going to happen). Ugh.
I hate kerry.
* :sniper: kerry*

Really me to, if he puts a ban on shotguns, im moving to another country.

And you should have + or - changes

It's a two part question--the war on Al Qaeda (I refuse to call it the war on terror) and the war in Iraq. The two are not the same. Under Kerry, more attention would be paid to al Qaeda, for starters--more intelligence resources dedicated toward them, for instance. As far as Iraq is concerned, I imagine Kerry will get some token assistance from allies who didn't help Bush, but the end result will be to declare victory and get out of Iraq. It sucks, but I really think that the US presence is doing more harm than good at this point.

Yes, it would. Kerry would just flop again and be unwilling to support the war on terror without the uN's backing (which is not going to happen). Ugh.
I hate kerry.
* :sniper: kerry*

Do you have conclusive evidence or just the common flip-flop theory? Did you even know kerry was a "flip-flopper" before election time?

Do you have conclusive evidence or just the common flip-flop theory? Did you even know kerry was a "flip-flopper" before election time?
Or that Bushy is a far worse flip-flopper-flippity-flop-flip-floperist?

I think when Kerry said he wasn't a flip flopper, just that his opinions can change due to new facts that come to his knowledge, proves he is a better leader. Bush attacking Kerry, saying he is a flip flopper, is moronic. Is Bush trying to send the message that, no matter WHAT happens, his stances on ssues will not change regardless of new knowledge and social views? At least Kerry's open enough to see he can be wrong sometimes when new information arises and/or see that society's opinion have changed, and adopt his positions as such. Such may be the case in the WoT, but Bush is too hard headed to ever change his opinions.

Ugh, I'm tired, I don't know how intellegent that'll sound, if at all...

Seeing as he'd STILL have to deal with the total mess in Iraq (plus trying to fix that mess, not just saying that "we're doing fine"), how much devotion would be diffused to the War on Terror? Would it be a significant difference?
Oh that WoT, I was at a loss for a minute trying to figure out why the Presidential election should have an overt effect on the fantasy writings of R Jordan....

I do think Kerry would make a difference. If someone does something negative and states they'll do it again given the chance, and helping them to clean up their mess will render them capable of making another such mess again sooner, why would you help, you'd just be enabling the perpetrator in their acts of destruction?

The fact is Iraq is a mess and most people dont want it to be a mess, but they dont want a similar mess being perpetrated elsewhere on other people, so it would be self-defeating to leave the mess unless helping to fix it is encouraging a whole new mess. Bush said he'd do it all over again, Kerry is promising to act more rationally. I wouldnt help Bush because I think he'll do it all over again elsewhere given the chance, I'd just be helping to spread misery, but I'd help Kerry clean up Iraq because I believe doing so will help the people of Iraq, and add to international security rather than simply allowing another mess to be made and global stability further eroded.

Really me to, if he puts a ban on shotguns, im moving to another country.

And you should have + or - changes

You care to tell me what other country? Weapons in the United States are under a LOT less restriction than in other countries, maybe you are thinking to move to Canada? I doubt Kerry is banning shotguns if elected. He's gone out of his way to show that he's not anti-gun.
GAAAH you single issue people are annoying!

THere would be a massive change, for the worse. The WoT would be stuck in the same morass of ineptitude and inaction that has paralyzed the UN for decades.