http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041010/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_3

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said.
Sorry, but any hope for a Bush loss just went bye bye. Your prefered candidate just stuck his head in the sand and inhaled.

"just"?

Wow. A nuisance.
Fuck, USA is a nuisance. Terrorists are crazed lunatics with a gun to the head of all of us.

Lol, does anyone take anything Akipt posts seriously?

As expected, the Bush campaign is already trying to twist his words into saying that kerry called terrorism a nuisance.

Jesus people, use your brains.

What I think Kerry means by that is this: Currently, the US is so worried about terrorism and terrorists that we have an unhealthy focus on them. Too much of our time is spent cowering in fear of what the next man or woman with a crazy idea in their head might do to us. He is looking for a return to normalcy, where terrorism is something we are worried about, but not entirely focused on. Living in fear is one of the worst ways to live.

See, he knows how to use his brain. It really wasn't that hard, was it talid?

I think the obvious answer is that I am a world-wide super genius, thanks.

I dont know a single person who lives cowering in fear of terrorism. I think we ARE at the point where it is just something people in general are just mildly worried about. Still, to say that terrorism at any point is just a nuisance, when so many people are dying? Even to desire to have it just a nuisance is just saying that he doesn't want to deal with it.

Congratulations on living in an area of the country with little likelihood to be attacked and a high education rate, Kein.

If you were to move out into an area where the education standards aren't so high, I'd be willing to bet you'd meet 'a single person who lives cowering in fear of terrorism'. Food for thought and all that rubbish..

Anyone that thinks terrorism can be 100% eliminated is seriously retarted. Can drugs be eliminated? Can gangs be eliminated? Can crime be eliminated? No, no and no. Unfortunately Bush has chosen to pander to his empty headed, right wingers by claiming that terrorism can be eliminated. It is unfortunate that someone cannot be truthful and a realist in a presidential election without having your opponent pander to his soccer mom, talk on the cell phone while driving an suv, hard core bible thumper, la la land constituency.

Its funny, the more I read Akipt's posts, the more I realize he is the poster child for Bush supporters.

Phelonius

As blunt as he is, I think Phel is correct.

Terrorism isn't going to end miraculously. Neither is the drug problem. It's always going to be there, no matter what we do.

Bush thinks Kerry is unfit for command? He needs to look in the mirror. How can someone who chokes on pretzels, falls off bikes, holds books upside down, throws his dog on the ground, and has full blown short man complex be remotely fit for command?

dubya the clown (http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics.htm)

Phelonius

I live in Washington, DC. Let me tell you, every day a plane takes off from Reagan International and is flying a little low I worry that one is the one. And I'd like to think that I've got a good sense of reality and really don't even get all that worried compared to most of the other locals.

Just last weekend a girl asked me to watch her bag at Penn Station in New York. She was real cute, so why the hell not? Then the old woman next to me asks "Are you sure we shouldn't report her bag to the police? it could be a bomb." and I really couldn't help but looking at her funny. Good news was, it wasn't a bomb and I'm alive to tell you all about it today, but the fact is people are so worried senseless that it effects their daily lives in many places. Its a big political mind-game in some aspects, whens the last time the Terror Alert was Green or Blue? Never -- because that means we are safe and don't need to reelect a president on a campaign of terror.

http://snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp

False, Sorry.

Its funny, the more I read Akipt's posts, the more I realize he is the poster child for Bush supporters

I agree. Then again that is one of the best compliments to give someone in this day and age.

Man you are totally brainwashed. Being a Bush supporter is a compliment this day and age? Hoooookay. This should be good for some lively posts.

Man you are totally brainwashed. Being a Bush supporter is a compliment this day and age? Hoooookay. This should be good for some lively posts.

Man you are totally brainwashed. Being a Kerry supported is a compliment this day and age? Hooooookay. This should be good for some lively posts.

Terrorism happens how often in this country Talid? If anyone here is living in such constant fear, then it is because they are completely and utterly paranoid. If I was walking through a bad part of Hartford (probably among the poorest capital cities) and I saw a Middle Eastern guy walking around I still wouldn't think OMG HE R HAVE SUICIDE BOMB!!!1!

If there is a correlation between 'high education rate' and not being afraid, it's because people without an education are too stupid to think otherwise. Kerry has an education and is currently running for President (in case you missed that), he should not spend his time cowering in fear, but neither should he view terrorism a 'a nuisance'.
A nuisance is a fly that you have trouble swatting: annoying, but of course it can't kill anyone. It will go away if you leave it alone. Terrorism is a problem that has to be dealt with. It won't stop until someone finds a way to stop it.

Let me tell you, every day a plane takes off from Reagan International and is flying a little low I worry that one is the one. And I'd like to think that I've got a good sense of reality and really don't even get all that worried compared to most of the other locals
Paranoia. Just because you would like to think you're good about it doesn't mean you are.

And holding other people's bags has always been warned against, supposed terrorism frenzy or not.

If anyone here is living in such constant fear, then it is because they are completely and utterly paranoid.

And don't you find it odd how the people that are constantly telling them to be afraid, that we need to buy more duct tape, that the terror warning is zOMG yellowz, are Republican? And that they are only safe from this horrible terror under a Republican Administration?

It won't stop until someone finds a way to stop it.

And just how do you suggest this be accomplished? By bombing the shit out of any country that disagrees with the US? Terrorism in itself isn't an entity that CAN be stopped. It can be intimidated, but it really cannot contained. How successful has the 'war' on drugs been? Know anyone who smokes pot? I know I do. (know someone, not smoke it, heh)

If there is a correlation between 'high education rate' and not being afraid, it's because people without an education are too stupid to think otherwise.

And that's absolutely true. But you'll also find those areas of higher education to vote in certain ways. I'm not going to come out and say all Republicans are stupid, because they aren't, so I'll leave it at that.

Also, since I don't really feel like holding a conversation with you on this topic on the boards, log on aim sir. Or send me a message if you're on, I didn't look.

And don't you find it odd how the people that are constantly telling them to be afraid, that we need to buy more duct tape, that the terror warning is zOMG yellowz, are Republican?

Actually, what I find odd is that the people who bitch the most about the government handing out alerts and laugh about the safety suggestions are the very same people who claim enough wasn't done to prevent...

If they really wanted to make an effort to do more prevention, they can start by listening to all those tapes that the CIA has. Next they can work on securing the borders. Then they can work on securing the ports and inspecting cargo. Or just continue to scare everyone with alerts and make teachers paranoid because the terrorists are going to take over schools.

I am insulted,as should every intelligent human being, when Bush gets on the TV and tells me the world is safer now that Saddam is in jail. Straight lies.

Phelonius

Its funny, the more I read Akipt's posts, the more I realize he is the poster child for Bush supporters.

I think you're being too harsh on Bush supporters. No one deserves to have akipt as their poster boy, thats a fate no one should ever have.

A bomb explodes killing a dozen civilians gathered for a family meal.

If we can link that bomb to an Iraqi, Syrian, or almost any Muslim, we can then call it an act of terrorism.

If the bomb came from an American aircraft and our only excuse for the deaths is we were trying to target a known terrorist, why is this not also an act of terrorism?

Innocent civilians being killed even in a time of war has been determined to be a crime, and the United States has prosecuted that case as fervently as any other country when it suited our purposes.

I will not be at all surprised to hear charges filed against our present political leaders for war crimes when this "war" has concluded. I am not saying I agree that they should be charged; I am saying that when you thumb your nose at your allies as well as the rest of the world nations and take action that is based on falsehoods as well as not being immediately necessary, you are going to have to face many different and unwanted consequences down the road.

On the one side we have folks that are wringing their hands over the terrible behavior of our president and his obvious poor decision making, and on the other you have the folks like Akipt that will just pound their chest and give the old middle finger salute and tell the rest of the world to get screwed, cuz "Dubya" is da man. It is too bad we have lost any middle ground......this political season has been one of the worst I can recall.

As a disabled Viet Nam vet, I am not at all happy with what Kerry did following his return from overseas, any more than I am happy with the behavior of the so-called patriotic members of the Swift-Boat organization.
And, as someone born in the state of Texas (San Marcos AFB in '52) I will have no qualms about joining the Dixie Chicks and saying I am embarrassed by Bush too. Neither of these candidates comes anywhere close to being the best that this country has to offer.

What bothers me most though is that it does not matter who wins the election, because the polarization has gone too far and people are getting too filled with animosity. No matter which side wins this election, the populace is going to spend the next four years at each other's throats blaming the other side for whatever problems and issues that they are not pleased with, and nothing is going to get accomplished as far as bettering the nation as a whole, because the two political parties are going to be too busy tearing it down to spite each other.

And so ends tonights long-winded rant.....




VOTE McCAIN:D

I should have just let this one go, but...

Man you are totally brainwashed. Being a Kerry supported is a compliment this day and age? Hooooookay. This should be good for some lively posts. I am voting for the Libertarian canidate. If I was forced to vote for a Republican or Democrat, I would have voted for McCain. You are aware that there are other parties than the two big ones? Both the Democrats and the Republicans, between their constant bickering and negativety, have fucked the government royally. I will not use my one and only vote to better either one of them. My issue with Kerry is that I dislike him to a lesser extent than Bush, but that is not saying much in Kerry's favor.

From a Libertarian stand point, we would not have half of the problems we do with terrorism if we refrained from meddling in other country's affairs. The enemy of our enemy is our friend indeed. Whatever.

From a Libertarian stand point, we would not have half of the problems we do with terrorism if we refrained from meddling in other country's affairs. The enemy of our enemy is our friend indeed. Whatever.
Right. Just stick our heads in the sand until things go nuclear in the Middle East and Korea, and hope WW3 doesn't irradiate us too bad. Great plan.

What I think Kerry means by that is this: Currently, the US is so worried about terrorism and terrorists that we have an unhealthy focus on them. Too much of our time is spent cowering in fear of what the next man or woman with a crazy idea in their head might do to us. He is looking for a return to normalcy, where terrorism is something we are worried about, but not entirely focused on. Living in fear is one of the worst ways to live.You are absolutely right. The other night me and my GF were leaving Borders and walking to our car when suddenly across the street a massive Fireworks display went off. I was like cool explosions, but my GF nearly freaked on me saying it was Osama or something B/C she hadn't heard there should be a fireworks display. Needless to say a lengthey discussion ensued about her mental stability, common sense, and the need to just live life damnit. I wanted to stay in the parking lot and watch but she threatened me with the couch so we left.

To me this is indicative of how most Americans are constantly thinking about Terrorism. Yes, it exists and yes it is a good idea to be mindful of it but Jesus, why in the hell would terrorists want to stage a fireworks display at some college in South Central PA? Honestly people if we live in this kind of fear the terrorists don't ever have to do another 9-11 style attack they are already attacking us by placing us in this kind of fear.

EDIT: And for the record my GF is a college grad, allbeit though she's a Graphic Artist. So I disagree with the education argument. My mother who lives in the sticks of N.Carolina would not have gotten paranoid like my GF did.

Don't make overly much of Kerry's statement.

Much like the weather here in Utah, if you wait a few more minutes he'll state just the opposite with as much conviction.

Fandros

Sanchek, Osama and Saddam used to be on the US Government payrole back in the Cold War days. I am not saying we should just "stick our heads int he sand" as you so snidely put. Perhaps a little bit less creation of situtations that in turn bite us in the ass down the road might be a good idea, though. We spend more money on influencing foriegn policy and Imperialism than most anything else, and yet we wonder why we get attacked by terrorists. You don't hear about Sweden getting bombed by Islamic extremest terrorists from a region of the globe 5000 miles from their country, do you? Or Japan? Or the list goes on and on and on.

Chances are if anything ever causes WW3, it was of our own making and frankly if it DOES go nuclear in the Middle East and stays contained in the Middle East, they would be doing the world a big fat favor. Plenty of people have suggested a glass parking lot approach, and if Iran and Israel can take care of that without involving our troops, well good on them. We are not the world's police force. I didn't join the military to be a fucking cop walking a beat and I don't salute the flag because I want to be part of an empire. I don't want my country's flag to represent the United States of Earth.

What I DO want is freedom and the right to have a good life free of the government looking over my shoulder all the time. You still have a greater chance of dying in a car crash then in a terrorist attack. People still drive every day and buy alot of cars. So maybe we should just carry the fuck on with our lives and perhaps not allow thew only weapon terrorists truely have, FEAR, get the better of us.

Three points.

I'm not a kid. You don't have to try to lecture me on how we created Iraq, Iran, etc. I know these things.

+

You don't hear about Sweden getting bombed because they're not us. Even if we ditched the rest of the world, and left them to fend for themselves, we would still be a target. We're the biggest, the richest, and go against everything those people believe. I guarantee you they won't just drop the grudge.

+

If you honestly are trying to have us believe there can be such a thing as a contained nuclear war (and that it would be a GOOD thing), I don't think there's much point to this.

=

We are in the position of power right now. History has taught us that turning a blind eye to our allies and the rest of the world leads to no good for anyone, including ourselves. In the era of global economy and nuclear weapons, a mistake like WWII would not be something the world could recover from. It sounds simplistically happy and wonderful to withdraw and ignore the rest of the world, but that kind of short sightedness would inevitably lead to catastrophic results for everyone involved.

Well, then it would appear the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions. But you already knew that, right Sanchek? You know everything. Sorry if I can't come up with anything more witty or intelligent, but I am just a few IQ points above Down Syndrome as it is and I also have been up most of the night thanks to work, so this is the best I can do.

I just wanted to comment on the whole nuclear war prospective of this conversation. If Korea or Iran have or will have nuclear warheads, how do you think NORTH Korea or Iran will deliver this to US turf? its not like they have the ability to produce a reliable ICBM. Do you believe that they could transport it over here in any other way? In a briefcase? Either way those countries resources are so limited that it would not break out a so called WW3. What, they hit "near" us with a nuke so the US is going to start nuking the piss out of the rest of the world, then the reset of the world nukes the US. Na, anyone that truly believes this has too much fat on the brain (up to, but not limited to our reliable admins). Those third world turds are more likely to detonate a warhead on themselves by accident.

One very plausible scenario that's been mentioned is detonating a large nuke off the coast of California or New York. Judging by the amount of contraband that enters the country on a daily basis THROUGH customs, I doubt there would be much stopping someone from blowing one on board a freight ship or tanker just about to dock.

That's just one possible scenario I read about as being a high threat. I'm sure there are plenty more. Osama and gang have already proven themselves to be creative enough to catch us off guard. I can't believe that's even a question any more.

I am soo tired of the "flip flopper" argument. Anyone who has half an understanding of bills in congress knows that there are a million facets to each one. Take for exampe the bill they are currently working on with the corporate tax cuts. There are like 10 things in that bill. This bill is labeled "tax cuts" but it has provisions for buying out tobacco farmers and provisions for pay for national guard reservists called to duty. So, as a congressmember, you are forced to vote on the whole bill. So what do you do if your constituents are for military pay increases and against tobacco farmer buyouts? Either way you vote you will have pissed off people. So down the road your opponent says "he is against tobacco buyouts, yet he voted for it". Understand?

As for the voting to give Bush power to use force. Its like contracting to have your house painted. When the painter gets there he starts digging a hole in your yard. Do you tell him to stop? When you tell him to stop he says "you voted to let me paint your house now you don't want me to paint your house". Bush did not do what they voted to let him do.

Phelonius

No one has used nuclear weapons because to use one is to invite the use of more in reprisal. Mutually Assured Distruction. The plot of Sum of All Fears touched on such a senario where a political terrorist (as opposed to one driven by religion, but idealogy is idealogy, right?) bought a tactical nuclear weapon on the black market and "smuggled" it into the US using regular merchant ships. It was disguised as a cigarette machine, and was placed at a football stadium. The end result was it went off, killed alot and people blamed the Russians etc etc. Of course Jack Ryan saves the world and gets the girl. Its Hollywood, but its a VERY plausiable situation.

Today all shipping containers get inspected when they reach port, but many of our major ports are also major cities. To denonate a device before the ship ties up on pier is not out of the question. It would not have to even be in a major population center.The weapon also doesn't have to be delivered by a large cargo ship. I could be delivered by something alot smaller at its final stop. Whats to stop a small pleasure craft with an offshore transfered weapon from sailing in? Its doubtful the government stops every sailboat and motor yacht aflaot. All it would have to do is get through, go off and there you have it. Loss of confidence in the system and a whole lot of resulting fear. Score a victory for the terrorists.

Yes, nuclear war ANYWHERE effects the whole world. The fallout from Chernobyl went around the globe and that was not even a true detonation. Sometimes I just feel that its fun to be sarcastic, and yes I know that the US has a role of responsibilty in the world because we can afford to intervene. Our past interventions have stepped on ALOT of toes though. Grudges are unavoidable but some should not be needlessly incured either. I am just curious if China will also have such a role when their economy and position of world influence surpasses ours in the future, and perhaps share in some of the blame :p .

Gah, Sanchek posted a similar post while I was typing mine. Screw this. I am going to bed. :D Also, the best place to hide a big nuke is probably IN the hold of a crude oil tanker, surrounded by its cargo. Raw crude has some innate radioactivity, and a propery shielded bomb would probably never be detected, but thats not the point since oil tankers don't get inspected anyway. They transfer of the cargo is monitered at both ends for possible spillage, but thats it. That is probably more than the typical terrorist organization would need, since there is still the question of how one would put such a large solid object in a space designed for liquids on board a very visiable ship (you can't exactly hide an oil tanker) even if its in dry dock. It would be a very large and expensive conspiracy. Still, if you wanted to get a weapon in that was on the Megaton yield scale, thats the ticket.

Bombs don't go off in Sweden because they mind their own fucking business. They don't get involved in all the worlds problems. That was his point. If the US long ago would have made it their business to mind their own fucking business, most of the problems we created, would never have happened.

We are concerned about north Korea and Iran having nukes, not because they can bomb us with them, but because they can bomb our allies with them. North Korea shot a missile over Japan and into the pacific. Iran claims to have tested a missile that can reach Israel and Europe. If Japan or Israel gets bombed it is the same thing as the US getting bombed.

Phelonius

Bombs don't go off in Sweden because they mind their own fucking business. They don't get involved in all the worlds problems. That was his point. If the US long ago would have made it their business to mind their own fucking business, most of the problems we created, would never have happened.
Yeah, that worked really great for us and the guys at Pearl Harbor, didn't it?

Why drag World War 2 into this? Its apples and oranges. The world is a completely different place now with a new set of rules.

Sanchek, Pearl Harbor was not a problem we created and bringing that up is so far off base its almost stupid. The Japanese attacked us more or less unprovoked. The government at the time was aware Japan was a threat and was preparing for such an event that we might have to engage in conflict with them but we WERE more or less content to mind our own business at the time. It was making us ALOT of money without having to kill alot of our citizens.

So, I guess you are suggesting we should have picked a fight with Japan first? Maybe we should have invaded Japan in order to prevent that but the end result would have been alot more dead than what happened at Pearl. Military and political leadership considered an invasion when Japan was weak and the end result was we used two nuclear fission bombs instead because the cost in lives conventionally would have been too great. All the Purple Hearts (the physical medal) awarded today were MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT INVASION. The stocks of them are vast.

Thanks for proving my point... We've already found out the reward for isolationism. Who in their right mind would want to go backwards to that? Especially now that we rely on world stability to keep our economy afloat, not just to import a few luxuries.

Just to add, I think my real point is that Shit Happens when you party naked. Sometimes you just can't influence EVERYTHING to have it go your way and perhaps just letting the world do its daily routine is preferable in many situations to babysitting other nations that are governed by ADULTS. If people truely want to harm us, THEY WILL FIND A WAY REGUARDLESS. Why give terrorists a reason or excuse to apply substance to an attack? We push hard enough we might just have the terror organizations have more of the world's sympathy than our government seems to garner.

I didn't prove jack shit for you Sanchek, other than you seem to think that we should live in fear all the time and that you seem to feel that fear is carte blanche enough to meddle with the affairs of other soveriegn nations whenever we please. You just don't get it do you? You ever think that the nations we fuck with MIGHT HOLD A GRUDGE??? Perhaps they might participate in the senseless murder of civilians because thats the only way they know that will get our attention? Its a vicious cycle. Screw this Imperialistic shit. People do not like being told what to do if they can happily live their lives on their own.

Why give terrorists a reason or excuse to apply substance to an attack? We push hard enough we might just have the terror organizations have more of the world's sympathy than our government seems to garner.Won't matter if they're dead. Anyway, this turned into a decent thread. Except for this little gnat...

Proving akipt wrong isn't exactly difficulty,(ok, it's as easy as hitting the ground with a rock), but I must admit, that was a very good job Binuven.
Lol, does anyone take anything Akipt posts seriously?
I think you're being too harsh on Bush supporters. No one deserves to have akipt as their poster boy, thats a fate no one should ever have.Talking alot of smack lately DiscW?

You haven't contributed any more than a "lol, fuck you" to any thread I've read lately. Maybe if you stopped sucking on your lover's balls long enough to grow a pair of your own, you'd have something to back up your lame existence with.

You haven't contributed any more than a "lol, fuck you" to any thread I've read lately.

Hey, not my fault you don't read enough threads.

You're right though, I don't bother arguing with people like you, since it's pointless. Go read Bylimet's post on page 3 again. And you seem to have forgotten that this isn't the place for those obscene, juvenille, and very unoriginal insults. If you wish to continue, lets go to PM's, so as not to derail the thread anymore.

I didn't prove jack shit for you Sanchek, other than you seem to think that we should live in fear all the time and that you seem to feel that fear is carte blanche enough to meddle with the affairs of other soveriegn nations whenever we please. You just don't get it do you? You ever think that the nations we fuck with MIGHT HOLD A GRUDGE??? Perhaps they might participate in the senseless murder of civilians because thats the only way they know that will get our attention? Its a vicious cycle. Screw this Imperialistic shit. People do not like being told what to do if they can happily live their lives on their own.
Actually, you really did. You pointed out very clearly that even when we were completely, absolutely hands off leading up to and during the first part of WWII, we were still attacked. Isolationism hurt us badly then, and would hurt us even more badly now.

And please, don't be naive. Whether it's by selling arms to certain factions of certain countries, training rebels, "aid" funding for certain programs, or any other of a long list of moves; most all sizable countries in the world are doing what they can to manipulate any others they're able to. We aren't the only ones playing the game. We just happen to be the most visible currently (and the other guys are stirring up as big a smoke screen for themselves as possible over it).

Well Sanchek. Lets just write off those killed in 9/11 as collateral damage to "playing the game". Hopefully there was "benifit" yielded to the United States as part of the results of setting that whole chain of events in motion that ultimately led up to 9/11. There probably is some sick twisted fuck of an analyist is Washington that will wiegh whatever favor we curried at the time against the 3000+ odd deaths, destruction of billions of dollars of property, disruption of the economy and the associated loss of income and jobs, and loss of freedoms and think that we still came out ahead. Well, unless that stone thrown in the pond and its ripples prevented a total cataclysmic nuclear exchange, it probably wasn't worth it.

Sometimes it would be nice if we did something other than train other countries on how to kill people. We are so good at being manipulative by offering weaponry and our best military minds to offer training in the finer arts of warfare. Many of these nations got trained in aspects of warfare that we don't even teach our own soldiers. Most people anywhere in the world just want a meaningful life of honest work with a hot shower, a hot meal and cold beer once the day is over. It would be nice (nice is a good word to use if you are naive like I am) if there was ways to give them the jobs to do that. Nope. We just teach them how to kill so they in turn can bite the hands that fed them and slam some airplanes into some buildings. Its the Peace Corps and other humanitarian organizations that do that other stuff.

Thats it for me. Going to have to agree to dissagree with this. Guess you are voting for Dubyah, eh Sanchek? (yes I know its none of my fucking business).

I see the "nuisance" comment as the bright line difference between the candidates on terrorism.

Kerry compares terrorism to drugs/prostitution/organized crime (see also the comments from Kerry's proposed Sec. of State). Kerry wants to treat terrorism, much like Clinton did in the 90s, as purely a criminal matter. Kerry's stance would be primarily reactionary, i.e. prosecute the terrorists after the fact (see, e.g., 93 WTC bombing and attack on USS Cole).

Bush, on the other hand, sees the war on terrorism much like the war against fascism in the 30s and 40s and the war against communism throughout the 70s and 80s. It is not a war against individual terrorists. It is a war against an idealism that supports and nourishes terrorism. It is everyone from the Taliban to Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden to Yassir Arafat that support and nourish terrorists. Bush's stance is to clearly make a much more proactive stance against the "ideals" of terrorism than Kerry's reactionary stance.

No surprise that the comment would be blown out of proportion and twisted to mean things it doesn't. Kerry wants to demolish terrorism to the point where it is no more than a nuisance, comparable in potency and perniciousness to vice crimes like gambling and prostitution. He did not compare those crimes to one another in significance or effect; he stated that he wanted to marginalize terrorism to the point where it is a minor irritant, a bothersome fact of life rather than an overarching global concern.

I realize metaphors can be hard, but at least try to think it through.

Thanks for re-iterating what I said earlier Thormir. It really bears repeating.

Anyone that thinks terrorism can be 100% eliminated is seriously retarted. Can drugs be eliminated? Can gangs be eliminated? Can crime be eliminated? No, no and no. Unfortunately Bush has chosen to pander to his empty headed, right wingers by claiming that terrorism can be eliminated. It is unfortunate that someone cannot be truthful and a realist in a presidential election without having your opponent pander to his soccer mom, talk on the cell phone while driving an suv, hard core bible thumper, la la land constituency.
Yeah, so I guess we should just stop worrying about drugs, gangs, crime and terrorism since there's no point and we can't eliminate them, right?

Bush thinks Kerry is unfit for command? He needs to look in the mirror. How can someone who chokes on pretzels, falls off bikes, holds books upside down, throws his dog on the ground, and has full blown short man complex be remotely fit for command?
Oh sorry I forgot that Kerry was perfect here. How do any of these have any impact on being "fit for command"? They're all so far from relevant that reading this post is painful.

I am soo tired of the "flip flopper" argument. Anyone who has half an understanding of bills in congress knows that there are a million facets to each one. Take for exampe the bill they are currently working on with the corporate tax cuts. There are like 10 things in that bill. This bill is labeled "tax cuts" but it has provisions for buying out tobacco farmers and provisions for pay for national guard reservists called to duty. So, as a congressmember, you are forced to vote on the whole bill. So what do you do if your constituents are for military pay increases and against tobacco farmer buyouts? Either way you vote you will have pissed off people. So down the road your opponent says "he is against tobacco buyouts, yet he voted for it". Understand?
So you're suggesting that there's a plausible excuse for each and every way he voted? How quaint for him. And naive of you. Give me a fucking break Phel, you can't possibly be that retarded, can you? Yes, you can't please everyone. Yes, there's bound to be times where someone votes against something because of one small part. But every single fucking time? Wake up man.

Bombs don't go off in Sweden because they mind their own fucking business. They don't get involved in all the worlds problems. That was his point. If the US long ago would have made it their business to mind their own fucking business, most of the problems we created, would never have happened.
Yeah... somebody was sleeping through History class when the topic was WWII. Maybe you *can* be that retarded.

http://home.comcast.net/~semedi/dumbkerry.jpg

So many ignorant liberals in this thread; go ahead and keep making excuses for your candidate.

Angeal,

You don't hear about Sweden getting bombed by Islamic extremest terrorists from a region of the globe 5000 miles from their country Yet another Bush supporter chopping sentances up, taking things out of context, and in the end still being wrong. The quote was talking about terrorist bombs not WW2, and last I checked Sweden didn't get bombed in WW2.

Yeah, so I guess we should just stop worrying about drugs, gangs, crime and terrorism since there's no point and we can't eliminate them, right?You said it not me. The truth is exactly as Kerry said, you cannot eliminate it, but you can reduce it to levels where it is merely a nuisance, just like drugs, gangs, crime, etc.

Yes, there's bound to be times where someone votes against something because of one small part. But every single fucking time?Have you researched EVERY SINGLE VOTE Kerry has made in 20 years service? Amazing. You could attack every single congressperson on that very same issue. There are always things attached to bills that a person has to eat shit on to get the things they want passed. I'm sorry you don't understand the reality of that, but rather choose to ignorantly attack Kerry based on that.

Bush, on the other hand, sees the war on terrorism much like the war against fascism
http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics/BushFascism.gif

OMG the irony. Bush fighting himself.

Phelonius

Anyone who takes the quote as anything other than what I and Talid stated only shows their desire to swallow whatever Bush emits instead of common sense. Semedi is a prime example of someone drowning in Bush -- cartoonish and unable to be taken seriously.

Have you researched EVERY SINGLE VOTE Kerry has made in 20 years service? Amazing. You could attack every single congressperson on that very same issue. There are always things attached to bills that a person has to eat shit on to get the things they want passed. I'm sorry you don't understand the reality of that, but rather choose to ignorantly attack Kerry based on that.Apparently Phel, since you have, I'll just bow down to your superior research skills here.

Yet another Bush supporter chopping sentances up, taking things out of context, and in the end still being wrong. The quote was talking about terrorist bombs not WW2, and last I checked Sweden didn't get bombed in WW2.
Do you even know who *did* get bombed in WWII Phel? Or why? If you can actually answer this question right (I won't hold my breath) maybe you'll understand the point I was getting at. (Again, I'm not holding my breath).

[Edit: Taking out the sig since it's already been posted once in this thread]

It's not just that quote Thormir, it's everything throughout Kerry's life that builds a record of how he acts and what he thinks, for us to judge. Kerry saying that he wants to get terrorism back to where it is just a nusiance shows a fundamental lack of vision regarding the safety of this country.

Talid's view on the issue reflects that he simply does not understand the threat that the United States faces. Certainly there are still gaps in our ports and borders that need to be sealed... it's not something you can just throw money at and make the problem go away. Someone with conviction and a belief in the cause must exert strong leadership to lay a path to the eventual benefit of our nation. That someone is George Bush.

To say that, "Too much of our time is spent cowering in fear of what the next man or woman with a crazy idea in their head might do to us" is taking a radical viewpoint, not a realistic one. Day to day Americans do not have their lives disrupted by terrorism... that's the only way you can judge something of such magnitude as terrorism. Are our day to day lives changed to the point where we can no longer function the same way we did before 9/11. As is readily apparent, the answer is no. We may experience increased security checkpoints, but that does not affect us to the point where our lives are changed. This is "normalcy" for most Americans. Yet the fact remains that there is vast potential for future terror attacks against America, and that threat must be dealt with. Bush correctly recognizes that as being a long term battle that must be delt with on many fronts, and it is something that is integral to the future of this nation. I feel much safer at night with George Bush commanding the United States military then I would with John Kerry pandering to the whining of some pissant europeans; worried about covering their own asses lest their political corruption be exposed. vbmenu_register("postmenu_73886", true);

While I disagree on some particulars, I appreciate you posting something meaningful and pertinent. I think Kerry will do a reasonable job of prosecuting "the war on terror." Bush will certainly do something about it, and very aggressively so, but I find his methods and support personnel dubious. No need to get into details of it; we'll simply disagree. Since a great deal of my dislike of Bush is for unrelated reasons, it's not a point worth arguing.

I dont post here alot, because I dont have the time... but..

To start it off. I was talking with this guy from Egypt, Fahad, who is a janitor in the school I work. Fahad was an engineer who moved to the US a few years ago. I remember talking to him last year, and we got along because he was studing for his citizenship test. He would was so gung-ho, always asking me questions about history. Quizzing back and forth, his enthusiasm was contagious and was wonderful.
THe other day something interesting happened. At the end of the day, after the last lunch wave left, the place was a unmitigated disaster. Garbage everywhere, there had been 2 fights, Im standing next to Fahad and a group of girls dressed fairly inappropriatly for school walk bye yelling curse words. I chastize them and then look at Fahad as he surveyed the scene. I looked at him and shrugged.
He looked back and said "So this is freedom?"

Whats the point? The point is this. Kill all the terrorists you want, unless you win the war of ideas it means nothing. The war is ideological. We have to convince the middle east that democracy is the best way to go.
But just like Vietnam we fail to realize the obvious things. Look at Vietnams allies. You would have thought that Vietnam and China would be extremly close. Not the case. The Vietnamese hated the Chinese. They no more wanted to be Chinese communists then American Capitalists then French colonial servants.
To them, freedom was just that.. everyone get the fuck out. If they were going to be communists, at least they would be VIETNAMESE communists.

So take that example back to Fahad. A man who loves America enough to leave his homeland and profession and start over for the sake of his children. Even to him the sell of America is at times difficult. Now how are you going to sell it to people in Baghdad or Riyahd or Kabul, or Tehran? Because if we dont make that sale, we will never win this "war", it will devolve into a cycle of violence like the one in Israel.
Kill Terrorists? Thats not a way to prevent it. Thats a reaction.

So whats the plan to "stop" terror? Invade Iraq and dictate the form of the government? Do we dare "let go"? Do you still wonder why many Iraqis hate America like they hate Saddam? To us is makes no sense, to them... its all the same. Freedom is the ability to make the choice. Why are they thinking in all likelyhood Iraq will disolve into civil war? Because then its "theirs", they own it. A foriegn power didnt come in and do it for them, they freed themselves. And they may very well choose "Iraqi Islamism" over "american democracy" unless we can sell who we are to them. The Al-Queda types understand this, because every act they do in anonymity, every child they murder, every bomb that goes off, every pipe line that gets sabogated, gets blamed not on them, but on the USA. "Is this freedom?"
And the same goes for the middle east all over. Dictatorial brutal oppressive governments tolerated if not openly supported by the West because it fit their needs are on the way out. What will they be replaced by?
Have we sold who we are?

Hopefully this will be a lesson for future generations. A people must take on change themselves, and a nation must find its own way. Any attempt by another power to hijack that process will only end in disaster. Helping to create and fund a revolt in Iraq was the way to go. Instead we didnt trust the Iraqi people enough to do themselves.
We reap what we have sown.

you get lamer every day Anyone want to sign that one?

I love that. It must mean I am still in process of getting lame. It take pleasure in that, due to the fact that many of you are already there and have surpassed me by light years.

L2, that was an excellent post.

While we're discussing unsigned reps...

"Jesus people, use your brains." Comming from someone who thinks John Kerry never switches his position. Your a damn joke, Bush doesn't need to twist Kerry's words, he makes his self look stupid on his own.

Where'd I say I think kerry never switched positions, hmmm? Grats on incorrect assumptions. And 'he makes his self look stupid' coming from someone with that grammar is damn funny. Thanks for the laugh, whoever this coward is. :)

Yeah... not as witty as Lummus, I know.

L2-

You are right on the mark. However, that process involved changes to the very core values and everyday beliefs present among many in that area. That kind of change in values and thought doesn't happen overnight. It is a process that takes years and perhaps a few generations of people undergoing a gradual change in thought- provided everything goes right.

It is a far better political move to invade, shake things up, hold a fast election and point at how fast the change happens- leaving the mess for the people in power 10 years from now to deal with.

Why the hell should we live in fear of terrorism when at least ten times as many (probably more like forty, but too lazy to pull a cite) people die in car crashes and several times as many are murdered by our own countrymen? That's simply irrational.

You have a higher chance of dying while driving to work - do you stop driving altogether or do your best to drive defensively and intelligently?

If a bunch of gangs emerges somewhere within your city, do you say "Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!" and faint, or just start avoiding that area and leave the worrying to the police?

If you know that you probably inherited a tendency toward heart disease, which will become pretty damned serious by your thirties (as is the case with me), do you panic and bitch at the cruel God for the rest of your life, or adjust to it by exercising, eating healthier, and preparing for a career suitable for the worst-case scenario?

Admittedly, one cannot do much against terrorism unless one works for the DHS or FBI or something. But one can take intelligent precautions. If that relatively small threat still supersedes all your other worries, you may as well move to Canada.

On a different note, we did provoke the Japanese before WWII. IIRC, we threatened their main oil supplies around Indonesia/Indochina, and sent fighter pilots (the AVG) to fight for the Chinese, among other things. A world power doesn't get attacked for no reason.

I predict that in the last 2-3 days of October the administration will announce a non-specific terrorist threat and, possibly, increase the warning level. The administration may tie the warning to the electoral process (i.e., terrorists may try to target places involved with the process), but they are aware of "no specific targets or plans."

On a different note, we did provoke the Japanese before WWII. IIRC, we threatened their main oil supplies around Indonesia/Indochina, and sent fighter pilots (the AVG) to fight for the Chinese, among other things. A world power doesn't get attacked for no reason.Guess they had no other option than to try and take the oil for themselves aggressively huh? We forced them invade all those countries. This lie is told so much, it's repeated like its fact. "We caused Pearl Harbor!" bullshit.

And I don't recall China invading Japan, so that aside holds the same.

I predict that in the last 2-3 days of October the administration will announce a non-specific terrorist threat and, possibly, increase the warning level. The administration may tie the warning to the electoral process (i.e., terrorists may try to target places involved with the process), but they are aware of "no specific targets or plans."
If John Kerry is going to do a better job managing our war on terror, then he'll get some votes from it won't he? Hell, he should win in a landslide because Bush is so incompetent, we can't trust that dumbass with our safety any more.

We need to get back to the way things were, more diplomatically with other countries, so they can like us again, like back when they used to ... back ... uh, back some time I'm sure the world loved America some time in the past.. right? Kerry can be our prom king. That's what we need now, a prom king to make America popular again. Yeah.

:rolleyes:

I've enjoyed reading this, and other, political threads over the past couple of weeks. Thank most of you for the intelligent commentary. Up until this weekend, I forced myself to remain "undecided". I don't like either candidate for president. I feel that Kerry isn't committed to any particular agenda and is basically running as the "not Bush" candidate. I don't like Bush's position on Iraq or his foreign policy in general. I don't hold Bush terribly responsible for the economy, mainly because I think that an adjustment was due and not much of anything was going to stop that.

But, I did make up my mind, grudgingly, to vote for Kerry. The reason is that I can't vote for Bush based on his foreign policy. I believe we have a responsibility to the world community to work together and act like the word "allies" means something more than "you're either with us or against us". We can act like John Wayne if we want to and we can pay the price for that. I know that we, as Americans are prideful of our success and capabilities, but we aren't the only country on this planet and Bush doesn't seem suited to take into consideration the impact of his decisions on other nations throughout the world. This has always been the issue I've had with him; however it wasn't the final issue in my decision.



I have listened to him numerous times discuss his intentions to route out terrorism wherever it may hide (no problem with that), and to continue to spread democracy throughout the world (huge problem with that). Democracy is an ideology. It's one I believe in. I love it. However, I can never support the effort to impose it on anyone else. The idea of spreading democracy throughout the world is no different than the idea of spreading communism throughout the world after WWII. It's wrong. It's Imperialistic (as ironic as that may be). I strongly agree with the points that L2 made. The sovereignty of another nation is far more sacred that the propagation of democracy. You're not going to sell democracy the mother of a 4 year old that got blown up by one of our bombs that was intended for some "insurgent". All she knows is that her child was alive until we decided to liberate her and spread democracy to her corner of the globe. George Bush thinks this is the right thing to do.



In closing, as though it matters, I am disgusted by both parties for their use of terrorism as the primary focus of a political campaign. What happened on 9/11 was a horrible thing, but it was NOT justification to become an offensive warring nation that gives the finger to the rest of the world community in the interest of "protecting itself". America is becoming very Un-American.

I want to wish Nemaj a very sincere thank you for the most readable and thought out post I have yet read on these boards regarding the political process we are enduring at present.

It is easy for me and others to sit back and say this one or that one or both suck; Nemaj actually put into words what I have been feeling for so long.

Thanks very much.



I still say VOTE McCAIN, tho:D

Nemaj, we are not just becoming un-American to protect ourselves, I am beginning to see un-American behavior in the election as well. We now have the AFL-CIO trashing Republican campaign offices across the country (likely at the behest of some Democrats). For people who like to compare Bush to Hitler, they sure aren't shying away from using "brownshirt" tactics themselves.

I will be *so* glad when this election is over and the country can get back to concentrating on other problems that desperately need action.

As an aside, reading this article here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2003/0110empirelite.htm

sparked a bit of thought on my part about the United States' role as an empire.

Here's another one (http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe) for you, Gulor. A company registering voters around the country has been caught trashing those forms filled out by Democrats.
The company has been largely, if not entirely funded (http://nonprofit.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?Job_DID=JQ5WL605V900TFY6WG&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=54b133d6a7ba4a0aad3aa2d05f284e57-150934357-xo-2), by the Republican National Committee. And then there's the W. Va. (IIRC) GOP passing out fliers stating that if Kerry is elected the Democrats will ban the Bible. The Dems can't claim innocence when it comes to underhanded tactics (or just plain silliness (http://www.wral.com/politics/3802195/detail.html)), but the Reps seem to have refined it into an art. Can't wait til it's over.

Nemaj, we are not just becoming un-American to protect ourselves, I am beginning to see un-American behavior in the election as well. We now have the AFL-CIO trashing Republican campaign offices across the country (likely at the behest of some Democrats). For people who like to compare Bush to Hitler, they sure aren't shying away from using "brownshirt" tactics themselves.

I will be *so* glad when this election is over and the country can get back to concentrating on other problems that desperately need action.

Any links to articles about the AFL-CIO trashing the offices? I have not heard of this, and would be interested to read the articles.

And, I think election day is not going to end the acrimony but that we will continue to see these same accusations and under-handed actions by both sides indefiinitely. It has become too ingrained and habits are difficult to change.

I saw a link last week I'll try to dig up. The article stated that a group of protesters with ties to the AFL-CIO forcibly entered and trashed an RNC office. I haven't heard anything of this being widespread (perhaps it was); the article I saw cited one incident.

I believe they did it to 5 or 6 RNC offices throughout the U.S. as a way to "protest" the labor department's long overdue revisions to overtime rules.

Here are various links... the AFL-CIO is denying it of course and the burglaries could easily have been someone else, but the pattern is classic AFL-CIO. I could no longer find the article about the gunshot into a Bush campaign headquarters a few days ago but I will keep looking.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041012/D85LISJ00.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002060393_breakin12m.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002059735_webbushoffice11.html

http://www.georgewbush.com/news/Read.aspx?ID=3874

Thormir-
Both parties are resorting to crap like registration fraud. Here in Colorado it appears to be mostly greed related, though the areas effected are heavily Democratic ones-

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=8ac173fd-0abe-421a-011e-5ce7dfcf561e&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

When folks are being "paid" to go out and register voters, fraud is inevitable.

So it looks like in Nevada legitimate registrations are being trashed, in Colorado bogus ones are running rampant. God knows what else is going on out there. Maybe the foreign election observers are a good idea.

*-edit* As far as a fine art goes, I think the Democrats spreading of the rumor of a "back door draft" to young voters is pretty crafty too. And *nobody* has ever matched the Daley voter fraud machine of yesteryear.

Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff, indeed.