Terrorism

[Akno21]

We can't attack Saudi Arabia, where a lot of terrorists come from. That's because the Saudi's own 7% of the US economy. Plus, Bush has too many friends in the Middle East that he doesn't want to alienate by invading their countries.

[Nym90]

Kerry, hands down.

[MarkDel]

Kerry, hands down.

Yep, Kerry will set a wonderful tone for the prosecution of the War on Terror. And after 8 years of Kerry, and a few more Democratic administrations, this will be a wonderful country. I'll make sure to polish up on my Arabic...or hopefully I'll be lucky enough to die in the initial nuclear attack, that way I don't have to suffer through the fallout. The good news for you Democrats is that any nuclear attack will limit the pollution problem caused by all of those evil SUVs, so at least the environment will be cleaner and the "earth" will be back in balance with so many fewer cars and aerosol cans to destroy the ozone layer.

[Nym90]

That's just plain silly, MarkDel. Kerry isn't going to retreat from the War on Terror one bit. He'll put the focus on Al-Qaeda instead of on Iraq, and repair relations with the rest of the world. This will help immensely in the War on Terror.

Overall though, Kerry won't be that much different than Bush on foreign policy, I don't think. More focus on diplomacy, but overall, he'll continue the reconstruction of Iraq, and really not THAT much will change. It's foolish to suggest that we'll all be dead under a Kerry administration. Foreign policy doesn't change that much from one administration to another generally speaking.

I know you disagree, but I just don't see anything Kerry has said that would lead me to fear for my safety. Personally I think we'll be a lot safer under Kerry, and that Bush has jeopardized the War on Terror by focusing on Iraq, which had no direct connection with 9/11.

And suggesting that Arabs will take over the US is just waaaaay out there. I don't see how all these liberals who are supposedly so extremely left and have so much influence in the Party are that much worse than such knee-jerk assessments you are making that Arabs will overrun the US and that there will be nuclear attacks on the US.

[dazzleman]

That's just plain silly, MarkDel. Kerry isn't going to retreat from the War on Terror one bit. He'll put the focus on Al-Qaeda instead of on Iraq, and repair relations with the rest of the world. This will help immensely in the War on Terror.

Overall though, Kerry won't be that much different than Bush on foreign policy, I don't think. More focus on diplomacy, but overall, he'll continue the reconstruction of Iraq, and really not THAT much will change. It's foolish to suggest that we'll all be dead under a Kerry administration. Foreign policy doesn't change that much from one administration to another generally speaking.

I know you disagree, but I just don't see anything Kerry has said that would lead me to fear for my safety. Personally I think we'll be a lot safer under Kerry, and that Bush has jeopardized the War on Terror by focusing on Iraq, which had no direct connection with 9/11.

And suggesting that Arabs will take over the US is just waaaaay out there. I don't see how all these liberals who are supposedly so extremely left and have so much influence in the Party are that much worse than such knee-jerk assessments you are making that Arabs will overrun the US and that there will be nuclear attacks on the US.

I disagree that we'd be as safe or safer with Kerry as president.

Kerry's instincts have always been anti-defense.  He voted against all the weapons that are the cornerstone of the military.  If it were up to him, we'd have no ability to project military power.

The only way Kerry can repair relations with the rest of the world is to allow us to be passive victims.  That is the only thing that will make our "friends" in Europe and elsewhere happy.  They love to weep over the dead, but condemn anybody who would take action to prevent more people from dying.

Kerry has been unable to take a position on any issue.  If the Iraq war was such a bad idea, why did Kerry vote in favor of it?  There is/was a direct connection between Iraq and international terrorism, whether or not Iraq was specifically involved in 9/11.  The problem of Islamofascist terrorism is far bigger than the 9/11 attack itself, and to focus only on that attack leads us into the same trap that Clinton (and other presidents prior) led us into, where we responded, if at all, to ever-increasing attacks only after they happened.  

The problem is now too dangerous to be handled in a legalistic manner; it must be attacked on a broad front, as Bush is doing.  If he is successful, those condemning him now will say in 20 years that they were always with him, just as many who opposed Reagan's cold war policies now retroactively support him, even though they supported the much more "reasonable" policies of the Democrats at the time, for many of the same reasons they oppose Bush now.

The fatal weakness of democracy is that many people almost never recognize a mortal threat until it is too late.  That happened to the world in the 1930s and if not for the Bush administration, it would be happening to us right now.  There would have been huge opposition if anybody had effectively responded earlier to the threat to peace in the 1930s, but it would have been far better for everybody, including those who would have been protesting, to have responded early to those threats.  9/11 was a wakeup call for the danger of far more serious attacks, and I don't believe that Kerry could or would respond effectively to them.  Our "friends" in Europe don't care if we're attacked, as long as they're spared.  If Kerry sets out to try to please these people, we're done.  They expect us to bail them out, but there is nobody to bail us out.

[MarkDel]

That's just plain silly, MarkDel. Kerry isn't going to retreat from the War on Terror one bit. He'll put the focus on Al-Qaeda instead of on Iraq, and repair relations with the rest of the world. This will help immensely in the War on Terror.

Overall though, Kerry won't be that much different than Bush on foreign policy, I don't think. More focus on diplomacy, but overall, he'll continue the reconstruction of Iraq, and really not THAT much will change. It's foolish to suggest that we'll all be dead under a Kerry administration. Foreign policy doesn't change that much from one administration to another generally speaking.

I know you disagree, but I just don't see anything Kerry has said that would lead me to fear for my safety. Personally I think we'll be a lot safer under Kerry, and that Bush has jeopardized the War on Terror by focusing on Iraq, which had no direct connection with 9/11.

And suggesting that Arabs will take over the US is just waaaaay out there. I don't see how all these liberals who are supposedly so extremely left and have so much influence in the Party are that much worse than such knee-jerk assessments you are making that Arabs will overrun the US and that there will be nuclear attacks on the US.

Nym90,

Obviously the "speaking Arabic" comment was SARCASM, as was the global warming comment. The nuclear threat comments are of course real, and well founded, as Dazzleman has eloquently posted in his response to you.

[Nym90]

Ok, I just wasn't sure, Mark. I apologize.

I guess my point was that I don't think we'll all die if Bush wins, but I do think we'll be less safe overall.

As far as the nuclear threat is concerned, we should focus a lot more on North Korea, and also reducing our economic dependence on China. That's where the real problem lies on that front.

[MarkDel]

Ok, I just wasn't sure, Mark. I apologize.

I guess my point was that I don't think we'll all die if Bush wins, but I do think we'll be less safe overall.

As far as the nuclear threat is concerned, we should focus a lot more on North Korea, and also reducing our economic dependence on China. That's where the real problem lies on that front.

Nym90,

No need at all to apologize, I was the one who made the nasty, sarcastic comment. Personally, I agree on North Korea, but that is a very, very complex situation. As for the economic relations with China...we have turned a potential threat into a potential ally with trade.

[Nym90]

Trade with China is good, yes. I would absolutely oppose cutting off trade with China.

However, if our economy is too dependent on Chinese goods (as I feel that it generally is right now) we give them more leverage and ourselves less.

Plus there's the human rights issue...but yeah, this is about to drift offtopic now, so I better stop.

[The Duke]

Ok, I just wasn't sure, Mark. I apologize.

I guess my point was that I don't think we'll all die if Bush wins, but I do think we'll be less safe overall.

As far as the nuclear threat is concerned, we should focus a lot more on North Korea, and also reducing our economic dependence on China. That's where the real problem lies on that front.

Nym90,

No need at all to apologize, I was the one who made the nasty, sarcastic comment. Personally, I agree on North Korea, but that is a very, very complex situation. As for the economic relations with China...we have turned a potential threat into a potential ally with trade.

Just a few questions.

1) If China is now an ally, why didn't they support the Iraq resolution?

2) If China is an ally, why do they supply North Korea with fuel and food?

3) If China is an ally, why did they take 24 hostages from our reconnaissance plane in 2001?

4) If China is an ally, why are they constantly refining their naval combat tactics to better enable them to destroy aircraft carriers (when the only other antion who stations aircraft carriers in the Pacific is us)?

5) If China is an ally, how do you explain the publication of "Unrestricted Warfare", a how to manual for waging unconventional war against the United States?

6) If China is an ally, why do they seek to reconquer Taiwan, a peaceful democracy?

Next thing I know, you'll be calling Libya an ally.


And Nym90,

20 years ago, I would have been laughed at if I had said that soon, Arabs will take over Europe.  Now that seems almost inevitable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LMAO. Sure all the Arab armies are storming across Europe now. Faster than Hitler was. ha ha ha

[The Duke]

BRTD,

Take a look at the demographic projections from Europe.

[MarkDel]

Ok, I just wasn't sure, Mark. I apologize.

I guess my point was that I don't think we'll all die if Bush wins, but I do think we'll be less safe overall.

As far as the nuclear threat is concerned, we should focus a lot more on North Korea, and also reducing our economic dependence on China. That's where the real problem lies on that front.

Nym90,

No need at all to apologize, I was the one who made the nasty, sarcastic comment. Personally, I agree on North Korea, but that is a very, very complex situation. As for the economic relations with China...we have turned a potential threat into a potential ally with trade.

Just a few questions.

1) If China is now an ally, why didn't they support the Iraq resolution?

2) If China is an ally, why do they supply North Korea with fuel and food?

3) If China is an ally, why did they take 24 hostages from our reconnaissance plane in 2001?

4) If China is an ally, why are they constantly refining their naval combat tactics to better enable them to destroy aircraft carriers (when the only other antion who stations aircraft carriers in the Pacific is us)?

5) If China is an ally, how do you explain the publication of "Unrestricted Warfare", a how to manual for waging unconventional war against the United States?

6) If China is an ally, why do they seek to reconquer Taiwan, a peaceful democracy?

Next thing I know, you'll be calling Libya an ally.


And Nym90,

20 years ago, I would have been laughed at if I had said that soon, Arabs will take over Europe.  Now that seems almost inevitable.

John Ford,

I actually called China a "potential" ally, not an ally, there is a vast difference. Most of the criticisms that you can make about China are true of many of the European nations as well, especially France and Germany who are supposed to be our old Nato allies.