Kerry vs. Bush and the threat of immediate terror...

[Hitman]

So, I am sitting in my apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

And I am getting calls from all my relatives to tell me to get the hell out of NYC because we are now on red alert....

But I am going nowhere. Call it ignorance, bravery, stupidity...but I say fuck al Qaida and the 14th century fools they rode in on.

Whatever....

But....

if there is some terrorist action in NY in the next few weeks, does it help...

or

hinder....

the re-election campaing of W?

[dude1394]

Be safe hitman and be on the alert for arabs acting funny.

Who the heck knows, let's hope you don't find out.

[reeds]

ask drbio- she knows everything

[Drbio]

reeds is such a dumb ass.


Hitman- I usually don't like the f-word posted because of the kids, etc on this site, but you nailed it sir. F'em. I do hope that you are safe and that nothing happens. As for your question.....the American people understand that our country is vulnerable. No President from any party can guarantee safety. I think the better question therefore is how will Bush respond to another attack? I'm pretty sure we all know that our response will be swift, complete and with extreme malice.

Bush has a backbone and will respond accordingly. Kerry would probably seek out a plan from the frenchies.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Drbio
reeds is such a dumb ass.


Hitman- I usually don't like the f-word posted because of the kids, etc on this site, but you nailed it sir. F'em. I do hope that you are safe and that nothing happens. As for your question.....the American people understand that our country is vulnerable. No President from any party can guarantee safety. I think the better question therefore is how will Bush respond to another attack? I'm pretty sure we all know that our response will be swift, complete and with extreme malice.

Bush has a backbone and will respond accordingly. Kerry would probably seek out a plan from the frenchies.

I find it ironic how Kerry and Edwards are against terrorists but against the war on terror. Maybe I should have posted that in Chiwas' paradox thread.


EDIT: Never mind, Kerry is both FOR and AGAINST the war on terror. I forgot. Sorry.

[sturm und drang]

"War on terror" or "War on Iraq," Mavsman? Unfortunately, the two are not identical.

Do you feel safer having invaded and "won" the war against Iraq? I don't – and truly wish that I did. Are you too partisan to see the obvious: that both Democrats and Republicans want, above all, just to be safe? To eradicate the world of terrorists such as Al-Qaeda? For yellow, orange and red to just be colors again, free of any deeper, more insidious meaning?

Democrats supported the invasion of Afghanistan – there was a direct link to 9/11, and we were right to demand the Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden, and we were right to invade the country when they refused. The president lost us at going to war with Iraq, a country with no direct link to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11.

I would feel much safer had we invaded, say, Iran instead. According to the 9/11 commission, that is the country that had those direct links to terror. But invading and "defeating" Iraq, in my opinion, has made us more hated and vulnerable than ever before. And for what? To capture Saddam, who – while undoubtedly evil, like many other world leaders – had no role in 9/11 and was, in fact, an enemy of Bin Laden?

In my, and many other Dems', opinions, the end did not justify the means. We have engendered far more fanatical hatred against the U.S. – without decreasing the immediate threat that haunts us.

I sincerely hope our president can stave off this new threat. This is not a time for partisanship. This is a time for us all to support him as he attempts to do the nearly impossible, to prevent what seems to be imminent.

[mavsman55]

Do you feel safer having invaded and "won" the war against Iraq? I don't – and truly wish that I did. Are you too partisan to see the obvious: that both Democrats and Republicans want, above all, just to be safe? To eradicate the world of terrorists such as Al-Qaeda? For yellow, orange and red to just be colors again, free of any deeper, more insidious meaning?

Well Saddam is in a prison, isn't he? That really should make you feel safer. War isn't such a bad thing when it puts cruel dictators/murderers in jail. I know what Saddam did wasn't terrorism, but it was close.

And regarding actual terrorists, we're still in Afghanistan, aren't we?

[MavKikiNYC]

Respectfully, Sturm, I disagree.

Why do you think invading Iran would have engendered any less hate for the United States than invading Iraq?

I see the War on Iraq as one component of the greater global War on Terror--not identical, but certainly overlapping. Opponents of the Iraqi War always try to make the (IMO false) point that Hussein did not provide direct assistance to the Al Quaeda operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks. While there may be no definitive proof of a direct link (yet), there certainly does not HAVE to be such proof to recognize that both Iraq and Iran (as well as other nations in the region) at the least allowed terrorists to enter and operate within their borders, knowing of their intent to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. Did they also provide financial support? Did they provide materials and logistical support? Did they provide intelligence and strategic expertise? Did they actively encourage such attacks? How much evidence would have been required for opponents of the war to feel an invasion was necessary? Another attack? Multiple attacks? Fortunately (IMO), the Bush administration determined that the safety of innocent U.S. civilians was THE essential priority, and determined a course of action to disrupt terrorist networks and thwart further attacks in the short-term.

Striking at the tap root of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was but a first step. But in and of itself, it would not have been anywhere near adequate. Reducing Afghanistan to rubble and then failing to pursue other terrorism-supporting states would have been akin to a show of weakness--a half-hearted response that would have generated more contempt than fear. Personally, I'd rather be hated and feared, than hated and held in contempt--the former being marginally safer.

Do I feel safer? I don't know anyone who didn't think there would be an elevated risk of attack in the short-term. No one thought that the coalition forces would be able to end terrorism with one fell swoop. The coalition forces hit back and hit back hard. The West would hurt the terrorists, but not destroy them absolutely. There would be repercussions.

I also don't feel that our former European allies have helped either our or their security. In particular, the capitulation of the Spaniards to the terrorists' attempts to influence thier elections grieves me, as I had once regarded Spain as my adopted country. Sadly, I think that Americans face an increased likelihood of terrorist attack today in some measure because of the spasmic grief-response of Spanish voters. I hope to God that Americans have more backbone and resolve. In my heart, I believe a majority will.

We Americans, and perhaps in particular, we in New York and Washington D.C., now face the same resolve-testing threat that the Madrileños faced. I have had three calls today from family and friends urging me to leave the city in August, and for sure to leave during the Republican National Convention. I will not leave. In fact, it is my intention to volunteer at the Republican National Convention, as I did 20 years ago when it was held in Dallas.

Is there some risk? Yeah. Not a lot, admittedly, but some. But I believe what the United States is doing is right, and I believe in the resolve, determination and capability of the Bush administration. I won't be going to Iraq or Afghanistan to participate in the campaigns in which I whole-heartedly believe, nor will I be one of the soliders, for whom I have such aching, consuming respect--putting their lives on the line to keep those of us here safer. But I'll be damned if I will flee in fear at the thought of some camel-dropping trying to kill innocent people here in the city where I live.

What truly makes me feel less safe is the thought of a Kerry-led gaggle of no-cojones Democrats, content, like the Clinton administration, to respond with a prim and tidy volley of cruise missiles against an aspirin factory. (Yeah, that will show them._ I think that such a woeful under-response helped to embolden terrorists worldwide, and acutally made both Amercians and citizens of other countries less secure.

Kerry or Bush, we will still face terrorist threats in the short-term. The difference, IMO, will be that with a Bush victory, the likelihood of such threats will eventually decrease. With a Kerry victory, not only New York, but indeed the rest of the world will become a more dangerous place.

[dude1394]

The euro's didn't feel "safer" with reagan putting those missiles on their soil, but long term they were. We must realize that like the cold war ( and all wars to be honest), evil must be confronted. Especially this evil as it's impossible to negotiate with. Can't out produce it, can't out manuever it, only have to kill the terrorists and at the same time try to change the poor pathetic arab culture that makes them willing to send their children to blow up more innocent children. If the dems weren't so power hungry they would realize that bush has freed 50 million souls from tyranny and is doing the heavy lifting of trying to help the arabs self-govern themselves, a noble enterprise that when they were still a responsible party they would applaud.

Although I'm not so sure I am as compassionate as bush is, I think he is correct. Not just for their good but for our long-term good.

Be safe yourself MK...

[reeds]

"Well Saddam is in a prison, isn't he? That really should make you feel safer. War isn't such a bad thing when it puts cruel dictators/murderers in jail. I know what Saddam did wasn't terrorism, but it was close."

Seriously, why would that make you feel safer?? What exactally did Saddam do to this country? Or put another way, what could he have done to this country?? NOTHING...

[dude1394]

Maybe at the very least he could have provided terrorists with money and resources. Oh, forgot he openly did that.

And honestly reeds, you haven't honestly tried to "seriously" have a discussion on this board.

[sturm und drang]

Respectfully, Kiki, I disagree.

As in business, I think it is logical to apply the ol' risk/reward rubric to the problem. Obviously, any fight against Muslim terrorists would inevitably produce greater hatred toward the United States. This, of course, should not deter any actions on our part to eradicate terrorism.

All I'm asking, then, was conquering Iraq enough of a reward to merit the risk? In my opinion, no. If we had, for example, invaded Iran, we would have exposed ourselves to the same risk of amplifying hatred towards us; history has repeatedly taught us that righting the wrongs of the world demands sacrifice. If our actions had disrupted the operations of Al-Qaeda or uncovered governmental support of terrorism (as was actually the case with Iran) – then I would feel the reward justified the risk.
As it is, we've unleashed a new, more powerful wave of animosity (and not just in the Middle East) than any of us have ever seen. And for that, we have... what? Saddam in prison. A nation writhing in terror-plagued chaos. And nothing – nothing whatsoever – to indicate that this process has harmed Al-Qaeda in any appreciable way. For the immeasurable risk we undertook, our reward has been... nothing. Nothing but increased hatred, the seeds of which we will sow 15, 20, 25 years from now.

As I said before, I hope to God that Mr. Bush and his advisors can somehow stave off this most recent threat. My sister was in NYC doing an internship, and my parents forced her to come home to Dallas. My best friend lives in New York, along with countless other friends. Sometimes I still can't believe the world we live in. Take care of yourself.

(Who knew we would one day long for the halcyon days of the Cold War?)

[MavKikiNYC]

Sturm, you do risk assessment pre-event, not post. Post-hoc risk assessment in this case would be.......an epitaph.

I think the hate would've been about the same, no matter whom the coalition focused its initial efforts on. It was going to be there to deal with no matter what.

I do believe, however, that putting forces in Iraq disrupted terrorist networks, refocused and reoriented many of their initiatives away from U.S. soil in the short-term, and cracked a nasty little ammonia capsule under the noses of the leaders of other terrorist-supporting governments in the region.

If it becomes necessary to engage Iran in the future (and it may) do you not see the strategic value to having coaltion forces on either side of her?

[dude1394]

Not to mention that it began to surround iran as well. Iran is NOT iraq...

[dude1394]

(Who knew we would one day long for the halcyon days of the Cold War?)

And we wished for pre-nuclear during the cold war. Almost every generation must face their own obstacles. This is a tough one, there is no single country that can get it done, it's going to be (as rumsfeld said) "a long hard slog".

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
Or put another way, what could he have done to this country??

Bomb the living crap out of us?

[Hitman]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Bomb the living crap out of us?

With what exactly?

Weapons of mass destruction?

Oh, I forgot.

He didn't have any of those.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Hitman

With what exactly?

Weapons of mass destruction?

Oh, I forgot.

He didn't have any of those.

Just think about it for a second:

A cruel ruthless dictator with enough money to buy anything he wanted to, with a history of using physical force and violence to get whatever he wanted. Don't know about you, but sure scared the crap out of me.

[sturm und drang]

Mavsman wrote:

"A cruel ruthless dictator with enough money to buy anything he wanted to, with a history of using physical force and violence to get whatever he wanted..."

Oh, you mean Kim II Jung?

[Hitman]

Every dictator in the world is cruel.

Every dictator in the world has enough money to get whatever they want.

If they can't get what they want it is a matter of the people holding possession of said item don't want to relinquish it to said dictator, for whatever the reason.

Every dictator used force and power to get where they wanted to get.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Hitman
Every dictator in the world is cruel.

Every dictator in the world has enough money to get whatever they want.

If they can't get what they want it is a matter of the people holding possession of said item don't want to relinquish it to said dictator, for whatever the reason.

Every dictator used force and power to get where they wanted to get.

And how many of those dictators have a violent hatred towards the United States?

I hope you're not denying the fact that Saddam would have been able to destroy most of the United States if he really wanted to.

[reeds]

"A cruel ruthless dictator with enough money to buy anything he wanted to, with a history of using physical force and violence to get whatever he wanted. Don't know about you, but sure scared the crap out of me

I hope you're not denying the fact that Saddam would have been able to destroy most of the United States if he really wanted to. "


YES- I am denying that..they did not have the technology to do so. NONE whats so ever to reach the USA.

So, you are saying even before we went to war with IRAQ, "he sure scared the crap out of you"?? Honestly, I would be willing to bet before this war you never gave ONE second of thought to Sadaam and how he was a threat to this country....the truth please?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
"A cruel ruthless dictator with enough money to buy anything he wanted to, with a history of using physical force and violence to get whatever he wanted. Don't know about you, but sure scared the crap out of me

I hope you're not denying the fact that Saddam would have been able to destroy most of the United States if he really wanted to. "


YES- I am denying that..they did not have the technology to do so. NONE whats so ever to reach the USA.

So, you are saying even before we went to war with IRAQ, "he sure scared the crap out of you"?? Honestly, I would be willing to bet before this war you never gave ONE second of thought to Sadaam and how he was a threat to this country....the truth please?

Reeds, your blindness to everything that is going on around you is frustrating. Let's take a look at the simplest facts:

Saddam Hussein hates America violently.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless pig who isn't phased by murdering people.
Saddam Hussein has millions and millions of dollars.
Saddam Hussein had the power to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

If you believe that there was no way he could have hurt the United States, then it is obvious that you are letting your liberal no-war-because-it's-bad-and-I-don't-like-Bush glasses blur your vision of what's going on in the world.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Hitman
Every dictator in the world is cruel.

Every dictator in the world has enough money to get whatever they want.

If they can't get what they want it is a matter of the people holding possession of said item don't want to relinquish it to said dictator, for whatever the reason.

Every dictator used force and power to get where they wanted to get.

I don't agree that every dictator in the world is cruel.
But I do agree with those of you who are suggesting that there are others who are perhaps as cruel as Saddam.
If a world government (that is, whoever has the means: UN, EU, USA) is to be of any use to the world, they should remove from power any evil dictator that has a history of invading foreign countries for possesion of their land and of killing their own people on a mass scale. The rich and powerful countries have the means to stop the mass murder, the tortures, and the systematic raping and pillaging that exists in places like it once existed in Iraq. Shouldn't the people in those rich and powerful countries want to do that? We can send all the dollar bills and grain we want to some far-away place for those poor, starving people we see at 3AM on the tv. But wouldn't it make sense to first fight to make sure that someone won't first steal the stuff that we send, and to make sure that if the stuff does get through, no one will go on a rampage to decapitate, gas, mutilate and rape all of those people that we see on the tv? If the leaders of the nations with means are to be of any use to anyone in the world, they should work to make the world safe for everyone. They sure as heck shouldn't spend their time making backroom deals for oil with those evil dictators.

I sure hope we don't have to deal with anymore attacks in the US. But if we do, it will do nothing but stregthen the resolve of the American people. We'll want to fight back. Americans won't back down under attack, saying, "thank you for killing 3000 more of my friends and family. Your terrorist ways have taught me a great lesson. We should sit back down at the table where we can work out some deal by which you can express your genocidal tendencies more freely, and without the pressure of American offense."