would america have been SAFER with kerry?
- Thread starter dragon002
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 231
- Views 17K
- Status
dragon002 said:shugo,
must be a severe case of "selective recall"
Oh it is for sure. I could go back and find many posts where he insulted me. I won't bother though-he is a waste of time.
shugo77 said:
Look who's talking... Actually you guys have such a habit, so another lie wouldn't hurt you, I know...
W_Tracy_Parnell said:
Umm, you're confused - that's the other topic. And if stating your ignorance AND PROVING IT counts as insult in your circles, then next time check your facts before posting false claims here.
T2k said:
From other recent posts to me by T2K:
"And if stating your ignorance AND PROVING IT counts as insult..."
"Your ignorance doesn't mean it's not happening..."
"This (a comment I made) is one of the most ignorant crap I ever heard (sic)"
"the world is much more difficult than you'd ever grasp"
The readers here can be the judge, but I personally find the above insulting.
I agree W. Tracy. For the most part, I don't bother responding to instigating posts such as those. It's simply a waste of my time, and seriously, do I really care what some of these posters think about me? When the same posters use the same simpleton tactics time and time again, it's painfully clear that this board must be the only real-time audience they have for their pointedly pointless attacks. Oh well, I guess it's good that they have an outlet.
sidekick said:I agree W. Tracy. For the most part, I don't bother responding to instigating posts such as those. It's simply a waste of my time, and seriously, do I really care what some of these posters think about me? When the same posters use the same simpleton tactics time and time again, it's painfully clear that this board must be the only real-time audience they have for their pointedly pointless attacks. Oh well, I guess it's good that they have an outlet.
Couldn't have said it better myself. (as t2k would be glad to point out my ignorance)
Possibly the most intelligent post I have read in quite a while, very refreshing. Thank-you, sidekick.
sidekick said:I agree W. Tracy. For the most part, I don't bother responding to instigating posts such as those. It's simply a waste of my time, and seriously, do I really care what some of these posters think about me? When the same posters use the same simpleton tactics time and time again, it's painfully clear that this board must be the only real-time audience they have for their pointedly pointless attacks. Oh well, I guess it's good that they have an outlet.
Sidekick and Shugo,
Thanks for the support and you are right it is pointless. I just can't resist responding at least a little bit.
I am still thankful to God that we have had President Bush in the White House the last 6 years. It is still humbling to me to think of how secure our country would not be if Gore had made the office in 2000. I highly doubt that he would have had the sack the Bush had to fight terrorism. And were were extremely close to having Gore for president.
I do not agree with some of the things Bush is doing (more so not doing). So don't take it like I think he is the savior for our country... he is just the right man at the right time, doing the right job that America needs done most.
I do not agree with some of the things Bush is doing (more so not doing). So don't take it like I think he is the savior for our country... he is just the right man at the right time, doing the right job that America needs done most.
Looking back, I think where Bush made his mistake-I think they should have declared war on Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the PLO. Then say, "You are with us or against us" and fought the rest. He had the support after 9/11 and I think he could have done it and solved the problem once and for all. A limited war like we are now in leaves you wide open to critics. Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
I stand behind the right to vote, I stand behind anyone that has voted for our president or against him or has decided that there is no viable option and made a choice ( this is our greatest right that we have fought for wich is the right to have choices) not to vote.
That being said I do not feel safe with Bush as our president, it is not because of his issues with public speaking, that says to me that his is just as human as you or I. It is not his devotion to religion, having someone that has a soul is always an asset when one life or a billion are teetering on the edge ( thank you JFK ). What it is is the decision to fight a war and continue to do so when it has been based on false information and then not taking responsibility for it, it is the reckless nature with wich this war was waged without any solid support of other countries other than great brittian and casting aside the united nations when the world is at a time when free countries must work together to face terrorism.
Would Kerry be any better? That is a question that no one can answer no matter how much the devine and guess or postulate, you wont know until it happens.
And one last thing, are we really secure? A huge area of land stretches east to west along our northern borders, a smaller area to our south, vast area's of coast line and undeniable evidence that our shipping ports are about as secure as dental floss holding closed a window in a hurricane. Theyve found a few terrorist cells in our country but I seriously doubt that they have found them all.
That being said I do not feel safe with Bush as our president, it is not because of his issues with public speaking, that says to me that his is just as human as you or I. It is not his devotion to religion, having someone that has a soul is always an asset when one life or a billion are teetering on the edge ( thank you JFK ). What it is is the decision to fight a war and continue to do so when it has been based on false information and then not taking responsibility for it, it is the reckless nature with wich this war was waged without any solid support of other countries other than great brittian and casting aside the united nations when the world is at a time when free countries must work together to face terrorism.
Would Kerry be any better? That is a question that no one can answer no matter how much the devine and guess or postulate, you wont know until it happens.
And one last thing, are we really secure? A huge area of land stretches east to west along our northern borders, a smaller area to our south, vast area's of coast line and undeniable evidence that our shipping ports are about as secure as dental floss holding closed a window in a hurricane. Theyve found a few terrorist cells in our country but I seriously doubt that they have found them all.
Last edited:
You mean we're safe now? Nope.
The problem we have now is that we have a government that spends all of it's time refusing to take responsibility for anything. It also justifies actions based on false information and then says little more than "oops."
Our government spends most of its time promoting a false sense of security, safety, and concern for its citizens. Just about every speech is either staged in front of a carefully screened audience or just for a photo-op.
Homeland security is a farce. FEMA no longer has the power to do anything. Our rights are being restricted. For some reason we're supposed to ignore illegal activities as long as the perpetrators are of a particular political party.
Would we have been better off with Kerry? Maybe not, but it's hard to imagine things being any worse.
The problem we have now is that we have a government that spends all of it's time refusing to take responsibility for anything. It also justifies actions based on false information and then says little more than "oops."
Our government spends most of its time promoting a false sense of security, safety, and concern for its citizens. Just about every speech is either staged in front of a carefully screened audience or just for a photo-op.
Homeland security is a farce. FEMA no longer has the power to do anything. Our rights are being restricted. For some reason we're supposed to ignore illegal activities as long as the perpetrators are of a particular political party.
Would we have been better off with Kerry? Maybe not, but it's hard to imagine things being any worse.
techpuppy said:
I don't remember Bush promoting any false sense of security. On the contrary, his administration has been quite vocal in its warnings.
On one hand you accuse homeland security of being a farce and on the other you say your rights are restricted. Don't you see the contridiction? What exactly does FEMA have to do with it?
I take it you don't agree with wiretapping Al Queda phone calls either? But you want security. But you want your rights. But you want to feel safe.
Excellent, thoughtful post, Van!Van said:
However, the public perception of why we are there (which is based only in part on what the administration has said) are NOT the real reasons we are there - but that's a topic all on it's own. Suffice it to say that countries rarely (if ever) go to war for just one reason.
Again, thanks for a good post!
SimpleSimon said:
Yes it was a good post Van, but we are not in Iraq only because of WMD, which I assume you are referring to when you mention "false information". This post is not intended to be “piling on” you Van, but rather I am taking the opportunity to write something that has been on my mind of late.
We live in an age of "sound bites" and it seems the media has a desire to water issues down to one sentence. Now that stockpiles of WMD have not been found many people feel we should not be in Iraq or came under false pretenses. I often hear people say, “I don’t know why we are there”. I wish everyone would take the time to go online and read the resolution that Congress enacted which authorized the war. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
WMD was only one reason given for the war. I have summarized 10 other reasons:
1. Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors thereby violating cease-fire terms of the first gulf war.
2. Iraq's violation of 17 UN resolutions.
3. Iraq under Saddam had shown a willingness to use WMD against other nations and its own people and available intelligence showed he had WMD.
4. Brutal repression of the Iraqi people by Saddam-certainly one of the most powerful arguments when you consider as many as one million could have been murdered during his years in power.
5. Iraq had aided international terrorists.
6. The official policy of the US government was removal of Saddam as per the Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress. This fact is not widely known by Americans in my opinion.
7. It is in the national interest of the US to restore stability to the Persian Gulf region.
8. Iraq’s 1993 assassination attempt against the first President Bush.
9. Thousands of instances of US planes being attacked by Iraq in the “No Fly Zone”.
10. Members of Al Qaeda were in Iraq.
Now, WMD were a major reason given certainly but not the only reason. In addition there are other unstated reasons for going into Iraq:
1. Look at a map. Iran, which is probably the biggest current threat to the US and Israel, is sandwiched between Afghanistan (now mostly under US control) and Iraq. It doesn’t take a genius to see that our strategic position in the terror war is strengthened greatly by having a “base” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. If we can win in Iraq, Iran will be at a disadvantage. Not only will we have troops there, but we will have the Iraqi troops as our ally as well. This will be a powerful deterrent to Iran if they should consider an attack on Iraq since the Iraqi troops would be highly motivated by memories of the Iran/Iraq conflict.
3. Syria, a prominent supporter of terrorism borders Iraq, again making Iraq of great importance strategically.
4. Any terrorists taken out in Iraq will be fewer we have to deal with later.
There are several other points worth mentioning here. As Simple Simon said, there is never one reason for going to war and in this case there are at least 10 others. As far as anyone “lying” or misleading about WMD, it didn’t happen. The CIA and all other available intelligence said there were WMD stockpiles. All the leading democrats said there were existing WMD:
http://farrightchatroom.blogspot.com/2006/03/blast-from-past-wmd-quotes.html
We know Saddam used WMD against the Kurds and the Iranians so it is beyond dispute that he had them. And if you know a guy like Saddam has WMD and you believe he will use them you would be remiss if you did nothing as President in my view. And if you are acting on the best information you have you are not “lying” whether you are talking about Bush or the Democratic leaders.
Van, you make the point that we have vast open borders on the north and south here in the US so we are unsafe. You are right and that is why we need to take the fight to the enemy on their turf which is basically anywhere in the Middle East. What is the difference if the battleground is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran as long as it is not in the US? The fight is still against the same enemy-Islamic Terrorism or whatever name you prefer to give it.
Now, anyone can make the argument that we should have fought the war differently and that is a valid concern. I would have favored a “declared war” against all countries known to support Islamic terrorism while we had the commitment from the American people. And you can say that Rumsfeld’s strategy has been wrong. But it was his policy from the time he took office to “downsize” the military and he carried this over to Iraq. He could make the argument that fewer troops in harm’s way mean fewer causalities.
But the point here is there are/were plenty of reasons to be in Iraq and they are still valid today three years later.
Dragon-much appreciated and if I didn't say so already thanks for your service to this country.
Shugo-you are probably right unfortunately.
Shugo-you are probably right unfortunately.
- Status
Similar threads
