Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

"Destroy those who would destroy us" means what exactly? Should we just go ahead and nuke Mecca... and then Medina for good measure?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

"Destroy those who would destroy us" means what exactly? Should we just go ahead and nuke Mecca... and then Medina for good measure?

eh, you're falling for the idea that every muslim is an enemy, which isn't true by any means.

It means that we should hunt down those that are planning for the destruction of the US. the leaders. Like Osama Bin Laden for example.

0 Replies

Oh really? You apparently don't see my sarcasm. I don't agree with the "destroy everyone" statement, McGentrix. I think it is silly to say that we plan to destroy anyone who doesn't like us. What kind of foreign policy is that? Might just as will kill everybody unless they kowtow to the good ol' USA.

In fact, Usama is the least of our worries. Instead, look out for all the very young boys learning at the knees of our friends, the Saudis... and Hamas... and the Eqyptian Liberation Front... and the Taliban... and all the Freedom Fighters in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, etc.

We're willing to destroy those who would destroy us? How do we choose? Who makes the decision? So far it seems many of you want to support this administration for pre-emptively attacking a country that couldn't destroy us.

Pssst -- wrong target.

0 Replies

Piffka: I interpret "us" as human beings, not just Americans. Saddam was a mass murderer of human beings and as such will not be missed. Same goes for Osama, the Taliban and every other murderous target of our current aggression. I would agree whole-heartedly that the proverbial **** list is way too short. But, (paraphrasing Dennis Miller) I don't think you mean it.

0 Replies

Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...

that suicide is painless

It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.
The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
and to another give my seat
for that's the only painless feat.
The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...
A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
is it to be or not to be
and I replied 'oh why ask me?'

'Cause suicide is painless

it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you please.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world.

Is it your contention that Clinton made no effort to do this?

0 Replies

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

The difference is about a billion dollars a week that has been diverted from the war an terrorism (militant Islamic fundamentalists). The war in Iraq has not weakened them, it has provided a new cause and training ground.

I know you don't mean to, but I think statements like that give such comfort and encouragement to the terrorists. Every time in the recent past, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Haiti, etc. etc., when the going got costly, scary, difficult, or problematic, we have cut and run. The terrorists expect that to happen again as the Americans lose the will and stomach to stand firm. It is not a military war they seek to win but an ideological one.

I honestly believe if the resolve of the American people was now what it was in the weeks following 9/11, most of the terrorists would acknowledge defeat and crawl back into their holes.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I know you don't mean to, but I think statements like that give such comfort and encouragement to the terrorists.

WHAT???!!!???!!!??? Shocked

0 Replies

Well, judging by an interview on NPR a few weeks ago, security moms (erstwhile soccer moms) certainly will vote for Bush because they like the idea of taking the carnage to the A-rabs if it means not having to suffer another attack in the U.S. of A., post 9/11. That is why they support the war in Iraq. Better an A-rab's child--any A-rab--than their own if it will prevent an attack here is their reasoning. After all, they did this to us. In their rationalizations they are more sincere than the doublethink of the chivalrous American male who at once want to protect the honor of Middle-Eastern women, and make examples of them in response to 9/11, showing them that the giant is awake, to perpetuate the perception of the megalomania of the American president and his administration. Megalomania a/o the perception of this in the world is good for America in their view.

0 Replies

OK- We are getting down to the finish line. Over these months, I am liking Bush less and less. The problem is, I am NOT liking Kerry any more than I did when I first wrote this post.

For a long time I was pretty sure that I was voting for Bush, even though I disagreed with a lot of his stands on certain issues. Now I am not so certain.

I have read Frank's link to the NYT's endorsement of Kerry. It is very well thought out. and brings up a lot of provocative issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?hp

I just can't throw off the notion that Kerry is a blowhard, who bends with the wind.

Any other "undecideds" out there, who are grappling with a decision?

0 Replies

Those who 'bend with the wind' make the best diplomats.

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

Quote:

I just can't throw off the notion that Kerry is a blowhard, who bends with the wind.

You might start by asking who gave you that impression, did you get from listening to John Kerry or from an attack ad?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

You might start by asking who gave you that impression, did you get from listening to John Kerry or from an attack ad?

All of the above, and a perusal of Kerry's activities and voting record over the years!

0 Replies

Are you looking at his voting record or are you listening to his opposition's report of it? Just wondering. A friend of mine was spouting the "he voted against the very weapons... " thing and I asked him how did he know?
He knew because ,,,, he'd seen an ad.

Just wondering. Have you looked up his record in the Senate? It's not spectacular, not flashy, just good legislation and solid investigations into banking, child welfare and the fate of the POWs. Twenty years of work, not flash. No blowhard there.

Maybe you would find it interesting to know that I was pissed at John Kerry and John McCain for closing the book on POWs and worse, I thought at the time, opening relations with Viet Nam. I've since come to believe that they are both men of integrity who in their different ways were looking to put an end to that war. What first pushed me away from Bush was his campaign's dirty tricks, not against Kerry, but against McCain in the 2000 primaries. Bush and his crew defiled the reputation of an honorable man and for the life of me I cannot understand why McCain stands with him today except that he loves his country if not it's President.

Oh and today there is this on George W. Bush
Please read it all, maybe it will help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1

Joe

0 Replies

Joe and Phoenix

Thanks for posting this link. The article was chilling and finally made up my mind. Our messianic leader has got to go.

0 Replies

(Phoenix, did you see the thing about iris scans in the last debate?)

Quote:

KERRY: Four thousand people a day are coming across the border.

The fact is that we now have people from the Middle East, allegedly, coming across the border.

And we're not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris-identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they're really the people they say they are when the cross the border.

We could speed it up. There are huge delays.

The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be, and I'll make them secure.

(Thought of you with that one.)

0 Replies

I followed pretty much the same track as you Phoenix. From Bush's moronic display at the first debate up until late last night I grappled with the idea of shopping for a third or fourth party candidate. (Sorry, Kerry never convinced me that he even had a direction... let alone one he'd follow).

Then during a couple of discussions where the military vote came up. This poll specifically..

This is what I came up with during this exchange:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

bashtoreth wrote:
I think it's interesting to note from those pie charts that a higher percentage of those deployed since Sept. 11, 2001, in a combat zone, would vote for Bush, than those who were not. Seem backwards to anyone?
Not if you don't buy into the far left propaganda. It clearly illustrates who the men and woman doing the dirty work trust. Frankly, that's good enough for me. I'm back in the Bush camp after a brief stop at undecided. I still think he's a nut... but at least he's a predictable nut.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm back in the Bush camp after a brief stop at undecided.

Not because the military vote goes to him I hope, the military always votes republican, always has always will. It goes for any country, military votes right of center.
Yes, I've read that... but the fact remains; those men and women are dodging bullets on my behalf and if a significant majority of them want Bush to be President while they're in combat than so do I. You have to admit, 2/3s is very significant, considering all the controversy.

When I woke up this morning, I knew it was right.

0 Replies

FRANK RICH
Will We Need a New 'All the President's Men'?
New York Times
Published: October 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/arts/17rich.html
"What you're seeing on your TV screens," the president said when minimizing the Iraq insurgency in May, are "the desperate tactics of a hateful few." Maybe that's the sunny news that can be found on a Sinclair station. Now, with our election less than three weeks away, the bad news coming out of Iraq everywhere else is a torrent. Reporters at virtually every news organization describe a downward spiral so dangerous that they can't venture anywhere in Iraq without risking their lives. Last weekend marines spoke openly and by name to Steve Fainaru of The Washington Post about the quagmire they're witnessing firsthand and its irrelevance to battling Al Qaeda, whose 9/11 attack motivated many of them to enlist in the first place. "Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better," said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day." Another marine, Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones of Ball Ground, Ga., told Mr. Fainaru: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong. We're catching them in a lie." Asked if he was concerned that he and his buddies might be punished for speaking out, Cpl. Brandon Autin of New Iberia, La., responded: "What are they going to do - send us to Iraq?"
What "they" can do is try to intimidate, harass, discredit and prosecute news organizations that report stories like this. If history is any guide, and the hubris of re-election is tossed into the mix, that harrowing drama can go on for a long time before we get to the feel-good final act of "All the President's Men."

0 Replies

O'Bill, please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1

If you come away from it still wanting to vote for Bush, fine, but I think you need to read it.

0 Replies

Basing your vote on the affiliations of our soldiers doesn't reflect your outstanding ability to see the forest for the trees Bill. IMO

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know