PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Ace on October 11, 2004, 08:49:15 AM
-
This is why I fear a Kerry presidency. I just don\'t think he gets it.
Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote
Democrats: GOP again taking senator\'s words out of context
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush\'s campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president\'s campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.
In the magazine article, a largely analytical cover story by Matt Bai, Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)
\'\'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they\'re a nuisance,\'\' the article states as the Massachusetts senator\'s reply.
\'\'As a former law enforcement person, I know we\'re never going to end prostitution. We\'re never going to end illegal gambling. But we\'re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn\'t on the rise. It isn\'t threatening people\'s lives every day, and fundamentally, it\'s something that you continue to fight, but it\'s not threatening the fabric of your life.\'\'
Kerry was a prosecutor before he got into politics, and made fighting organized crime a priority.
Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN\'s "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry\'s remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don\'t think he has the right view of the world. It\'s a pre-9/11 view of the world."
Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS\' "Face the Nation," used similar language.
"Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."
The Bush-Cheney campaign also announced it was releasing an ad highlighting Kerry\'s comment.
Reuters reported that the new Bush commercial\'s script asks "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn\'t understand the threat?"
Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer called the Republican charges "absolutely ridiculous."
"This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry\'s words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing," he said.
"The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It\'s not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S."
Kerry consistently has rejected assertions that he underestimates the threat of terrorism or views the battle against it as solely a law enforcement matter. He argues that law enforcement and intelligence are critical elements of the battle against terrorism, and that Bush has said the same thing.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was chairman of the Democratic National Convention, where Kerry got his party\'s nomination in July, said on "Late Edition," "Senator Kerry has said that the No. 1 threat to America is international terrorism, al Qaeda."
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Bush+campaign+to+base+ad+on+Kerry+terror+quote+-+Oct+10%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11907880&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FALLPOLITICS%2F10%2F10%2Fbush.kerry.terror%2Findex.html&partnerID=2001
-
I agree with what Kerry said (not what the Republicans said he said) 100% I don\'t understand what the problem is with this statement. Perhaps you could explain, Ace?
\'\'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they\'re a nuisance,\'\' the article states as the Massachusetts senator\'s reply.
\'\'As a former law enforcement person, I know we\'re never going to end prostitution. We\'re never going to end illegal gambling. But we\'re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn\'t on the rise. It isn\'t threatening people\'s lives every day, and fundamentally, it\'s something that you continue to fight, but it\'s not threatening the fabric of your life.\'\'
-
Kerry is the only candidate that could blow and suck at the same time. I know that seems improbable....but Kerry could manage to disrupt the space/time continueum.
If you want to save the universe, don\'t vote for him. :)
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Kerry is the only candidate that could blow and suck at the same time. I know that seems improbable....but Kerry could manage to disrupt the space/time continueum.
If you want to save the universe, don\'t vote for him. :)
Okaaaayyyy.... Whatever that means....
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Okaaaayyyy.... Whatever that means....
It means vote for Bush, ya big dummy! :p
-
I think Kerry just doesn\'t understand what we are fighting and if play around with these guys like the corner crack whore prostitute we are gonna get it on the chin again. It\'s not a law enforcement issue IMO. That also says to me that we wait for the law to be broken (like most crimes) and then we move to get the bad guys. I don\'t think we should wait
-
Originally posted by Ace
I think Kerry just doesn\'t understand what we are fighting and if play around with these guys like the corner crack whore prostitute we are gonna get it on the chin again. It\'s not a law enforcement issue IMO. That also says to me that we wait for the law to be broken (like most crimes) and then we move to get the bad guys. I don\'t think we should wait
I don\'t think that\'s what he said at all. I think you\'re reading something else into it. The gist of his answer is that we need to attack this problem of Terrorism vigorously until it is reduced and weakened to the point where it is no longer evokes a life-threatening fear in our day-to-day lives. He\'s acknowledging that terrorism can never be absolutely eradicated, but it can be beaten down through strong effort and continued vigilence.
-
The day we start thinking about terrorism like we did on 9/10 we are in trouble again.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Kerry is the only candidate that could blow and suck at the same time. I know that seems improbable....but Kerry could manage to disrupt the space/time continueum.
If you want to save the universe, don\'t vote for him. :)
Im sure you would feel more comfortable with somebody like Bob Dole then huh?
jk
-
Originally posted by Ace
The day we start thinking about terrorism like we did on 9/10 we are in trouble again.
Kerry isn\'t saying we need to address the problem of terrorism the same way we did prior to 9/11/01. He\'s saying we need to reduce the threat sufficiently so that people can feel safe again. What\'s wrong with that?
You must admit that Marc Racicot and Ed Gillespie deliberately misstated what Kerry was trying to say.
-
The problem with Kerry is he keep eluding to some plan - on just about everything from terrorism to health care, but he won\'t give specifics. About the only thing he did say about Iraq was he was going "to train more Iraqis" - uh the Bush administration has been doing that.
-
Terrorists are a huge nuisance.
Harim Ma\'jed, my roommate, for instance. ****er keeps forgetting to buy milk!
-
Those debates don\'t allow much time for explaining plans. For Iraq, he also mentioned tightening control of the borders and looking to bring more allies to the table. I assume he means both monetarily and physically.
-Dan
-
Johnkerry.com
Haha...that\'s where you go for his plans.
TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq (news - web sites) did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.
President Bush (news - web sites) has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.
But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan (news - web sites).
The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq "has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world," he said.
Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it\'s quite clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."
Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.
"On a strategic level as well as an operational level," Brom concluded, "the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism."
In other findings, Jaffee Center experts disagreed with the Israeli government\'s statements that its four-year struggle against Palestinian militants is part of the world fight against Islamic terrorism.
Yoram Schweitzer, who wrote the chapter about the Iraq war, said the local conflict is a "national struggle," while international Islamic militant groups like al-Qaida target not only Israel but also the entire Western world.
After interviewing Palestinian militants, including some in prison, Schweitzer said they do not consider themselves part of the al-Qaida campaign. "Many of them are critical of Al-Qaida and its methods," he told a news conference.
The Jaffee report found that Israel has succeeded in reducing Palestinian violence against Israelis.
Feldman said the motivation of Palestinian militants to attack the country remained unchanged, but praised the work of military intelligence in preventing many attacks.
"The only reason these (anti-terror) operations succeed is that we have better intelligence," he said.
Feldman said the weekend attacks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula aimed at places where Israelis gather did not figure in to the assessment. Thirteen Israelis were among at least 34 people killed in two car bomb attacks Thursday.
"We regard the attacks in the Sinai in a different category," he said, likening it to an attack at a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, last year that killed 10, including three Israelis.
The report includes statistical breakdowns of the military forces and their capabilities in the Middle East, as well as analyses of regional issues.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_terrorism
And that first post with Kerry\'s quote is BS. The GOP have been working their ass off so damn much at misenterpreting quotes and only using some of the quotes that it\'s very noticeable.
And doesn\'t that compare to what the Bush people tried to do after 9/11? Didn\'t they call out to the people that they should live their normal lives? Didn\'t they say to not worry about it and keep on doing what they\'re doing?...That is until they raised the terrorism alert to orange :sarcasm:
Bush said you can\'t win the fight on terrorism. Kerry just got smarter with it.
-
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than two-thirds of the people living in Australia, Britain and Italy -- three countries allied with the United States in the Iraq war -- believe the war has increased the threat of terrorism.
Leaders of those countries -- prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain, John Howard of Australia and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy -- all get low marks from their people for their handling of the war on terrorism, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows.
More than half of those in the United States, 52 percent, believe the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism, while three in 10 in the United States think it has decreased the threat -- a view promoted by President Bush.
"In the context of the presidential campaign in the United States, this is undeniably a blow for George W. Bush, since it shows that a majority of Americans don\'t agree with the main justification for his policy in Iraq," said Gilles Corman, research director at Ipsos-Inra of Belgium, who studies public opinion trends across Europe.
In Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, a majority thought last winter that the Iraq war was increasing the threat of terrorism. That number has increased in each of the countries. Australians were not polled in the AP-Ipsos project last winter.
In Australia and each of five European countries polled, only about one in 20 believe the Iraq war decreased the terror threat.
Leaders of several countries that opposed the Iraq war get strong ratings from their citizens on how they are handling terrorism.
Political leaders in the Iraq war coalition have faced domestic political pressure because of their stance on Iraq.
Howard won re-election Saturday despite criticism in Australia of his support for the Iraq war. The public was evenly divided on Howard\'s handling of terrorism, with only 44 percent approving, but he apparently was helped by Australia\'s strong economy.
Bush faces the voters again in early November in a campaign that is increasingly focused on Iraq, with public doubts about the impact of the Iraq war on the terrorism fight.
In Britain, the poll found only one-third approve of Blair\'s handling of the war on terror. Friday\'s announcement of the beheading in Iraq of British hostage Kenneth Bigley is likely to increase pressure on Blair.
Berlusconi has seen Italians\' fears of terrorism increase sharply since last winter -- from seven in 10 worried about terrorism in February to almost nine in 10 now. Only about one-third of Italians approve of Berlusconi\'s handling of terrorism. Two Italian women taken hostage in Iraq were freed last month, and an Iraqi who lived in Italy was executed by kidnappers in Iraq early this month. Berlusconi has pledged to lead the country until the end of his term in 2006.
In contrast, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Mexico and Spain all get high marks for their handling of terrorism, with a majority in each country saying they approve, according to polls conducted for the AP by Ipsos, an international polling firm.
French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero have all publicly opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has been less outspoken in his criticism of the war than some of the European leaders, but Canada didn\'t send troops to Iraq.
The leaders position on the Iraq war is only one of many factors that could affect public perception of their handling of terrorism.
Heightened feeling of insecurity
"The proportion of people worried by the terrorist threat has increased in most of the countries ... since February," said Corman of Ipsos in Belgium. "People feel more and more insecure."
Fears of terrorism increased in seven of the eight countries polled last winter and again this fall.
Only in Germany did those worries ease this year. Terrorism fears were high early this year after the killing of 14 German tourists in 2002 at a Tunisian resort and the revelation that some September 11 hijackers were part of a terror cell in Hamburg.
But public debate in Germany this year has focused on reforms of the social system, labor regulations and the health-care system, moving discussion of terrorism out of the spotlight, said Christian Holst, director of public affairs for Ipsos-Germany.
Overall, terrorism and the war in Iraq are likely to stay at the center of public debate in most of the European countries in coming months, said Pierre Giacometti, chief executive and co-director of Ipsos.
The AP-Ipsos telephone polls of about 1,000 adults in each of the eight countries except Mexico were taken between September 23 and October 2 and have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll in Mexico of 1,030 adults was taken face-to-face from September 23-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/11/international.poll.ap/index.html
American\'s don\'t feel safer according to that report. And the leader\'s of the countries that form our coalition are taking much heat for the war. Doesn\'t look too good.
And remember:
DON\'T VOTE FOR KERRY. HE\'LL BAN THE BIBLE!!
A message brought to you by your friendly Republicans.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Im sure you would feel more comfortable with somebody like Bob Dole then huh?
jk
Better than Kerry.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I don\'t think that\'s what he said at all. I think you\'re reading something else into it. The gist of his answer is that we need to attack this problem of Terrorism vigorously until it is reduced and weakened to the point where it is no longer evokes a life-threatening fear in our day-to-day lives. He\'s acknowledging that terrorism can never be absolutely eradicated, but it can be beaten down through strong effort and continued vigilence.
Not sure you get that out of thie:
___________________
\'\'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they\'re a nuisance,\'\' the article states as the Massachusetts senator\'s reply.
\'\'As a former law enforcement person, I know we\'re never going to end prostitution. We\'re never going to end illegal gambling. But we\'re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn\'t on the rise. It isn\'t threatening people\'s lives every day, and fundamentally, it\'s something that you continue to fight, but it\'s not threatening the fabric of your life.\'\'
If you are truly saying that Kery thinks we should irradicate terrorism so that one day it will just be a nuissance, then shit, vote for Bush. He\'s been doing just fine.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Johnkerry.com
Haha...that\'s where you go for his plans.
Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.
Now who is accusing whom of not living in reality? France and Germany aren\'t sending troops. This isn\'t a plan. I think Kerry needs to do a webpage update since the countries he was banking on have already stated this isn\'t going to happen.
Modernize The World\'s Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world\'s most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
Bush is already doing this.
Deploy All That Is In America\'s Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America\'s arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
WTF? Diplomacy, intelligence and economic power - Bush is doing all of this. Our values will stop the creation of new terrorists? This isn\'t a plan this is rhetoric - I agree that Bush is fighting the War on Terror with the same misguided assumption. People in the Middle East may want democracy, but the fact is they don\'t want our culture or our values which they see as part of what is wrong with America. Extremists only want one of two things - to kill in the name of their God or to see the whole world united under Islam.
As for the article you posted: It states "Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle."
Drawing them from perhaps launching an attack on US soil? Guess they didn\'t think of that one.
Think tanks
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Not sure you get that out of thie:
If you are truly saying that Kery thinks we should irradicate terrorism so that one day it will just be a nuissance, then shit, vote for Bush. He\'s been doing just fine.
Wrong. Two guys are running for president. One of them created a problem (the war in Iraq). Both say they can solve the problem. Do you think I\'m going to trust the bonehead who caused the problem to now fix it? Think again.
-
And both wanted to go into war......hmmmmm
-
And both of them had the same information, Kerry trusted Bush with his vote what does that say???
-
Kerry has the luxury of hindsight. "I would have done everything different." HA! :laughing:
-
I wonder if Bush would be doing the same campaign if Gore went to war? Bah, that guy never would have even invaded Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Wrong. Two guys are running for president. One of them created a problem (the war in Iraq). Both say they can solve the problem. Do you think I\'m going to trust the bonehead who caused the problem to now fix it? Think again.
Ditto.
When you\'re trying to solve a problem. For example a calculus problem, you go back after you work it out. Examine and decide if it\'s right or not. Then you\'ll see the mistakes you didn\'t see before.
On the other hand Bush thinks he is right. Bush thinks there is no global warming. Regardless of the thousands of events that have gone wrong he doesn\'t change his mind. He will never see the mistakes. Therefor he won\'t be very smooth in solving the problem.
And Mjps about that comment.
Kerry TRUSTED Bush with his vote. Bush misused it. What would you do?
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Kerry TRUSTED Bush with his vote. Bush misused it. What would you do?
That is good spin - "I trusted him with my vote." :rolleyes:
Funny how he was capable of voting against the first Gulf War without any problems. Flip - flop.
-
No one in this entire country was not expecting to go to war with that vote. To even think for a second that they voted in favor of striking Iraq and didn\'t plan to do it is ridiculous. THe inspections were a joke.
-
I don\'t understand why conservatives want their lives to be consumed by terrorism. You would rather terrorism be the focus of every day of your lives instead of being relegated to a mere nuisance? That makes NO sense to me.
What is the point of the war on terror if it accomplishes nothing but keeping us afraid and doesn\'t prevent another attack? Bush HIMSELF said the war on terror can not be won and Cheney said another attack is inevitable. What the fuck! What is this damn war on terror doing?! We have lost over 1000 of our troops and we are not safer than we were in 2001?! Come on now that shit doesn\'t make sense and people are walking around giving Bush glorious ball washings like he has accomplished something. Fuck that.
I have seen what Bush\'s approach has done and nothing has changed except the fact that we are in more danger and have less jobs. I just don\'t see how we can leave Bush in office and not expect a draft in the coming years. I\'ll take my chances with Kerry.
-
Terrorism is not some trivial matter. It\'s better if it\'s completely squashed out. We don\'t want it to be a nuisance that could come back and haunt us.
Rome thought barbarian raids were a minor nuisance. Look what happened to them. They\'re history.
-
I am not consumed by terrorism and I don\'t know anyone who is consumed by it but when you have the next pres. (possibly) saying that he will attack after we are attacked and now he wants terror to be just a nuisance then I say screw him and we better get our collective heads on straight because I am not willing to let another 9/11 and another 3000 people die because we are approaching this issue like it\'s a round-up of corner whores. *take a deep breath*
If he didn\'t mean to say it this way he better clarify it tonight but what f\'n good will that do when we all know he\'ll just nuance it to death depending on who he\'s talking to.
-
You can not eradicate terrorism completely. Its just not going to happen. With that understanding if it is not a minor nuisance than it is a major portion of your everyday life. I would take the nuisance over the major portion anyday.
Terrorism/Prostitution are nuisances because you want to wipe them out but you can\'t. With that in mind you do everything you can to prevent it and deter people from commiting it. Thats all you can do. Its just NOT possible to kill every single terrorist in the world.
-
I agree with Ace. I don\'t know anyone who is consumed by terrorism. Although I think we probably would be if we didn\'t go after it as strong as we are.
-
This "Nuisance" thing won\'t go over very well in Israel. They deal with that all the time.
-
Since when do we live in Israel? They deal with terrorism all the time so that means Americans need to worry about it all the time?
I thought the GOP party line was concern for the protection of America above all others. I must have missed that meeting where they decided that everything affecting Israel must now dictate US policy. Should Americans not talk about being hungry because Ethiopians are starving? What about complaining about something being crowded to a Chinese person? Is that still okay?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Since when do we live in Israel? They deal with terrorism all the time so that means Americans need to worry about it all the time?
I thought the GOP party line was concern for the protection of America above all others. I must have missed that meeting where they decided that everything affecting Israel must now dictate US policy. Should Americans not talk about being hungry because Ethiopians are starving? What about complaining about something being crowded to a Chinese person? Is that still okay?
We don\'t want to be another Israel. We don\'t want Israel\'s problems where they have to deal with it on their borders. I say "Nip it in the bud" or else that problem could make it over here in the form of an airplane, truck or ship.
-
meh..i agree with what kerry said..terrorism SHOULD be reduced to the point of it being a nuisance...face it..we\'re never gonna get rid of terrorism and those that think we are, are not living in reality...the majority of the world does not agree with the war on iraq..some might say that\'s a sign of strong leadership..no it\'s a sign of poor leadership(as far aas iraq goes) and poor foreign policies...
i don\'t know what kerry was thinking when he gave bush the ok..my understanding is that congress gave bush the reight to go to war if needed...imo bush just went about the war the wrong way i still feel he is slighty the stronger leader...but i feel he\'s not making any adjustments at all when it comes to iraq and he wants people to believe things are gettin better when clearly it isn\'t...
his plan of staying the course isn\'t working...he\'s just bein pplain stubborn and it\'s costing the u.s. lives and money...
-
How can you say Bush\'s plan isn\'t working? Have we been attacked again - I must have missed that headline.
-
My fear is if Kerry is elected there will be such headlines.
-
Kerry has no resolve. He has no plan and I can\'t believe someone who betrayed his country 34 years ago is a better alternative to someone who has proven he will defend this country.
-
Betrayed?! He is a traitor now?
-
He is considered a traitor by many Vietnam Veterans. His testimony before Congress where he lied in 1971.
John Kerry\'s photograph hangs in the War Remnants Museum (Formerly War Crimes Museum) in Saigon. He was a hero to an enemy of the US during a time of war. That is just plain wrong.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545
You have to wonder why it took the Navy 30 years to give this man a dishonorable discharge...
I am not questioning his service in Vietnam, just his actions when he returned home. His actions were those of a traitor.
I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh\'s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971
This is the law:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
How can you say Bush\'s plan isn\'t working? Have we been attacked again - I must have missed that headline.
so you think just because we\'re in iraq,..this is the reason why we\'re not being attacked? from what i\'ve been told is that 911 took years to plan...bin laden just didn\'tr wake up and stated ok lets hit up the twin towers...
all i\'m saying is that if you start out with a strategy and then somewhere along the lines it\'s fallin apart...it\'s time to make some adjustments...bush looks at what\'s goin on in iraq and states "we must stay the course"...ok fine but if you see s**t is gettin worse..do something about it..
hell send more troops to the borders...that\'s seems to be where the influx of terrorists are coming..and yes i know you can\'t secure ALL of the borders of iraq..but it\'s a start
obviously iraq is not secure anywhere..even in the green zone..so instead of bulls**ting just send more troops to iraq...ALOT more troops..he\'s gotta bite the bullet and send more troops even tho the amer. public may not agree with it...iraq needs to be shut down in one big swoop...not send a small force to this city...then send this small force to this city...
put as much troops on the ground as possible in those citys that are unstable,..even if it\'s viewed as an occupation( which it already is to some)...have the security to the point to where these insurgents would not have a chance to escape even if they thought about launching any type of attack...
-
So how many troops do you suppose we send???
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
So how many troops do you suppose we send???
enough to win the war...period..it\'s so obvious that there isn\'t enough there to get the job done..the iraqi force is a joke, and there is no help comin from any of the other major countries in the world...we said we\'ll go it alone..so now it\'s time to man up and do it...
-
Originally posted by clips
enough to win the war...period..it\'s so obvious that there isn\'t enough there to get the job done..the iraqi force is a joke, and there is no help comin from any of the other major countries in the world...we said we\'ll go it alone..so now it\'s time to man up and do it...
What bothers me the most is that the support we do have is weakening. Some countries are beginning to pull out and have intentions of leaving entirely by the end of next year. I\'d think the world would have a strong interest in helping to finish up the job and do it quickly.
-
I personally say f-ck it and leave the whole f-cking region, its nothing, but trash to begin with.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I personally say f-ck it and leave the whole f-cking region, its nothing, but trash to begin with.
even tho i didn\'t agree with the war from the jump,..that part of the war when they were dragging those american soldiers in the streets and celebrating..i felt the same way you did...just leave them to their fate...but unfortunately at this stage of the game it\'s highly unlikely...
-
But seriously who gives a damn what other countries think??? I\'m playing a little devils advocate, as I am a Bush supporter, but seriously let them fend for themselves and in a year see who there calling for help again. You realize 9-11 would probably never happened if we never had troops in there areas.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
But seriously who gives a damn what other countries think??? I\'m playing a little devils advocate, as I am a Bush supporter, but seriously let them fend for themselves and in a year see who there calling for help again. You realize 9-11 would probably never happened if we never had troops in there areas.
hmmm...i have a few problems with this. first of all they didn\'t ask for our help..and you say 911 wouldn\'t have happened if we never had troops in their area\'s? :confused:..i really don\'t know what you mean by that...we had troops in the area as far as enforcing the no-fly zone and such..if that\'s what you\'re referring to,..
but sayin that if we didn\'t have troops in the area 911 wouldn\'t have happened(at least that\'s what what i\'m reading here) is completely false..saddam had no connection to 911 at all...