John Kerry keep us safe?

[Independent1]

After 911, John Kerry never attended a single Senate Intelligence Committee meeting for an entire year, despite being on that committee. How is he going to keep us safe when he keeps himself in the dark???

[Thanato]

How is Bush going to keep u safe when he continuesly spreds hatred towords Americans with his actions.

~Thanato

[Celumnaz]

Integrity is unpopular with the cosmopolitan crowd. Many decisions and ideas are unpopular at the time, when history shows it was the right thing to do.

It's the popular thing of the times that's usually the wrong thing to do, and Kerry is always flowing with the 'in' thing to say.

[Novo]

I would rather have a man in officed, who has the nerve to change his opinions. Then a religous zealot, who sticks to them even if there stupid.

plus kerry doesnt go to counciling to avoid gett "huffy" during debates.

[ROGER]

Can I still vote for Al Gore. I liked him!

[Fluffybunny]

Is either presidential candidate a good choice? Not in my opinion. Neither guy has the qualities that I believe a president should have.

Of course the fact that you have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to run for president these days is going to limit the candidates to a select elite few people with connections to tons of cash and the right people. It is doubtful that you could ever have a president that has any idea what it is like to be a normal person living in this country.

Anyway, Asking if Kerry will keep us safe is really pointless as the same thing can be said about Bush. I know few Bush supporters seem to care what the rest of the world thinks about us, but we are at a very low point of world opinion. We have needlesly(in my opinion) p***ed off a whole lot of countries.

The invasion of Iraq was the fodder that terrorists needed to "prove" that it was a war against Islam rather than a war against terror when the links to terror and the WMD just fizzled away. So has bush made us any safer? I don't know; in my opinion the action in Iraq has probably done more to drive terrorist group support than any group of terrorist could have done on their own.

There is the chance that Iraq does get settled down and becomes a beacon of democratic hope in the middle east and that Bush is right, but I am not holding my breath. If Iraq does become a democratic stable country and they become and allie to us then the chance Bush took there might be worth it. It will be years before we will know if that is the case and in the meantime we have started something in Iraq that we may not be able to finish.

Will kerry keep us safe? As much as the next guy, yes. No one is safe now, and we haven't been for some time. Will he keep us safer than bush? I don't know; my guess would be yes. As my crystal ball is in the shop I can't say for sure.

[Celumnaz]

in the meantime we have started something in Iraq that we may not be able to finish.

That's the only real part I differ, that and I don't see it as a war against Islam, but a war against groups that blow people up to make a point and terrorise people who have nothing to do with it directly, terrorism. We have to win in Iraq, whatever it takes we can't afford to not win. That kind of faltering will turned Vietnam into what it's remembered as, it's the pulling together of the American people that made WW2 what it's remembered as. We're there, but even though people say they want to win, they don't have the will to win.

Victory is a thing of the will. - Foch

an adversary is more hurt by desertion than by slaughter. - Vegetius

I read one of the terrorist captors tried to help that Bigley guy escape, we can't give these guys an inch of confidence so we can get more of that kind of thing. The world sure loves to report on every single death, like there's not other death happening at a higher rate. It's an important location, it's part of the 'axis of evil' Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. We have to win, my opinion is if we're going to do it, and we did, do it all the way and no defeatist or fatalism, just optimism, like WW2, pull together with the message we will win.

[panther10758]

Kerry's voting record shows how well he would protect us. He has voted over and over against any defense measures

[Fluffybunny]

I am not saying that it is a war against Islam, I am saying that Islamic extremists are using the Iraq invasion(and wackiness that came afterwards with the intelligence crapping out) as an example of how the US is with Israel in trying to wipe them out.

As for having to win Iraq, I can remember everyone saying the same thing about Vietnam; we had to win or the communist were going to take the region and then get to Japan...etc...etc...Insert Slippery slope argument here. We all know how that went.

I really don't think people understand how stressed our military resources are at this point and how a prolonged war in Iraq(i.e. insurgents gain more ground than they already have or thing degrade to something along the lines of a civil war) would push us over the limits of our availabilities. We do not have the numbers of military soldiers like we used to; that has been going down for years as budgets get crunched an military technology becomes more and more expensive.

I really don't undertsand the "We can't give them an inch of confidence" kind of thinking. I don't see a single benefit to walking around with any more confidence in a situation than what is warranted. I could walk around whistling zippedy-doo-dah out of my backside all day long; it does not mean that some terrorists on the other side of the planet is going to scrap his plans to try to kill me or my countrymates because I am exuding confidence in my mountain retreat here in Washington state.

The situation is what it is; it isn't a pleasant situation and we have not done a good job of getting into this fight in Iraq, and we are shouldering an overwhelming burden to fight this war. We have a coalition of troops helping us that includes the UK troops in some serious numbers(considering the size of their military), but after than the numbers decline rapidly to the point that they are all just small handfulls of people in a support role.

We could very well be in a fix if we are not able to train and gain the support of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and policemen in short order.

[Fluffybunny]

Kerry's voting record shows how well he would protect us. He has voted over and over against any defense measures

297757[/snapback]

To borrow from Talon: Prove it.

[Seraphina]

We could very well be in a fix if we are not able to train and gain the support of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and policemen in short order

We should really have kept the Iraqi military and police forces in place...they could have functioned just fine under the government we were installing, and at the very least we'd have an infrastructure in the contry right now instead of the utter chaos that's been caused...

We've got a breeding ground for terrorists down there now, and not enough troops to control them, or stop them doing whatever they like....it's all rather sad....Sadder still that Joe Republican seems to think it's all going swimmingly, and that Bush made a great call.

[SilverCougar]

Bush cannot keep us any safer then Kerry.

While he was busy playing "hero of the opressed" with Iraq, and digging up rose bushes for nonexistent WMD, North Korea went and made them.

Whoops..

[bathory]

While he was busy playing "hero of the opressed" with Iraq, and digging up rose bushes for nonexistent WMD, North Korea went and made them.

aside from what could well be a chronological discrepency (i would have thought North Korea had this stuff for many years, even BEFORE Bush came to power)

it was the UNs responsiblity at any rate

[twpdyp]

And we have William Jefferson Clinton to thank, he is the one who authorized the sale of the reactors to North Korea. We have Mr. Clinton to thank for alot of things and none of them good.

[wunarmdscissor]

aside from what could well be a chronological discrepency (i would have thought North Korea had this stuff for many years, even BEFORE Bush came to power)

it was the UNs responsiblity at any rate

Actually bathory the belief was that N.Korea had the material to make MAYBE one bomb.

Before Bush.

Now they HAVE 4 or 5 bombs.

Safer world huh??

[SilverCougar]

Yeah? Don't you think Bush shoulda done something about it then? Blaming Clinton is all good and fine, but he's not the one in office. Bush is. It's his responcibility to protect us. And he's going to leave an even bigger mess to the next president. He's leaving a good chuck of the world flustered and stern with us.

Bush: We know you have WMD Iraq! Hand them over!

Saddam: We don't have them.

North Korea: We do!

Bush: I'm serrious, hand them over or we'll invade!

Saddam: I told you, we don't have them.

North Korea: Hey! Look at us! We do!

Bush: Shut-up, Korea.. we don't care about you.

Saddam: Honest, we don't have them.

UN: We can't find any.

Bush: Shut-up you pansies. Ok Iraq your last warning! We're going to invaide!

Korea: A screw it.. Let's blow up California.

[panther10758]

"Prove it" My God his voting record is proof!

[Fluffybunny]

"Prove it" My God his voting record is proof!

298084[/snapback]

The man has been doing his job for some 20 years perhaps you would like to narrow down your claim to something a bit more specific? Do a little research and post the specific votes that you are speaking of. Otherwise your words are little more that a bumper sticker Bushism...

"Proof" generally requires evidence. If it is your "opinion" then that is one thing, but proof is a very long way away from what you just posted. While I am sure many Bush fans will agree blindly to your statement without the simplest effort to find out if it is true or not, I won't.

[panther10758]

I gave you proof and have other things to do besides chase the internet for things anyone can see! He (kerry) has voted against many defense measures including the upgrade of equitment that would benefit our troops in Iraq. I cant make it any clearer your argument is pointless i gave proof I just didn't provide link. I have a job! I cannot spend my entire day doing google searches etc. Kerry's voting record is just that a voting RECORD LOOK IT UP!

[twpdyp]

SilverCouger

Ok how about it took William Jefferson Clinton 8 years to mess it up and you expect George W. Bush to clean it up in 4 years. Would you at least agree that Saddam had 12 years to comply with the U.N. resolutions, and that the U.N. authorized the use of force if he did not comply. If anyone is crazy enough to use chemical weapons on his own population and then invade a peaceful neighbor, don't they really pose a threat to the free world?

While we are on the subject and since I brought up former President Clinton, how about his turning down a chance to nab Osama when he had the chance?

Ohhh and who gives a rats hind end if the rest of the world is "stern" with us?

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor did we give a damn what the rest of the world thought. I don't believe we need to pass a test, Kerry's words, before we act to remove a homicidal mad man from power.

I would think the example of Quadaffi would be enough to convine anyone that we needed to remove Saddam, he had plenty of time to comply with the U.N. sanctions.

[Celumnaz]

I know, I've linked to the senate.gov site that shows his record (got threadlock, I'm not going to start posting his record again, it's there, look it up, it sucks. He's been on the opposite side of just about everything that history has proven to have worked, unless it was popular at the time), and looked at the gallup and other polls, especially during the juicy democratic debate. Kerry's all over the board.

Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea years ago. To say he's ignored them is ignorant. The reason they have much more capability is because before Bush got into office the Clinton administration did what Kerry says he wants to do in Iran, Give them the capability on their word they won't use it for Nukes. Madeline Albright, Clinton's patsy, says North Korea "Tricked" their administration.... ??? So in what, 5 years the Kerry admin is going to be saying Iran tricked them, N. Korea in bilateral talks again like the Clintons? China and Japan out of the negotiating process?

It's amazing how Kerry now proposes plans Bush is already implementing. The argument about the military is the same scare about manufacturing. The structure of the military is changing, cheaper unmanned units for recon arial and ground. Fewer troops are there because the massive ground forces needed in times past aren't needed anymore. With the equipment (Kerry voted against) fewer troops carry more capability. Resources shift, just like the revolutions in manufacturing.

The progress made is undeniable, but it's under reported or not reported at all by the world news. They don't want us to think we have a chance at succeeding. That's why I'm glad I have good friends in the military, you wind up having friends that email you from all over the world you used to school or work or play with. If it's bad, they'll tell me. Some are scared, and they tell me they'd be more scared if they weren't, the tactics of the terrorists p*** them off more than anything else, and it should us too, it shouldn't paralize us.

And Kerry had a good hand as much as an individual can in ensuring Vietnam was the fiasco it was. He still hasn't apologized for meeting with the enemy in Paris, for his rhetoric used in the psycological torture of our troops behind the lines, the courage it gave the enemy to know we were divided and some wanted to pull out. It made them fight harder. The boo hooing of the press didn't help much then either. Again.

And the Iraqi forces that were in place, some were working with the terrorists and kidnapping people. We have a media escapee here testifying Iraqi police waved him through 2 checkpoints while in a car full of terrorists with guns pointing at him. The guards and the terrorsts talked like chums. We had to do it the way we did, hard as it is. You can make all the plans you want going into a fight, but once it starts you pretty much can scrap them all, the plans must change and be flexible. Ours were, ours are, our equipment facilitates this. As we fight them we learn, and we're winning, in spite of the world media. I've been prepared for the Vietnam schtick as soon as I thought we were going to Iraq again. It's what those pansys did back then, it's the human shield mentality. It's probably ticking off every non-elected leader in the world and their pet media shows it.

[Seraphina]

I gave you proof and have other things to do besides chase the internet for things anyone can see! He (kerry) has voted against many defense measures including the upgrade of equitment that would benefit our troops in Iraq. I cant make it any clearer your argument is pointless i gave proof I just didn't provide link. I have a job! I cannot spend my entire day doing google searches etc. Kerry's voting record is just that a voting RECORD LOOK IT UP!

With people like this getting the vote, no wonder Bush is in power *shakes her head with a sigh*

[twpdyp]

Seraphina

I totally agree with Panther, John Kerry's voting record is open to public scrutiny, look it up. May I also point out it is not the President of the United States job to keep you safe it is his job to keep the United States safe. Scotland is not on his watch, unless you want to apply for statehood.

[Seraphina]

I'm well aware it isn't his job to keep my safe Believe me, if it was, I'd be fleeing the country

However, it is a fact that whoever is elected President WILL effect my life, one way or another...the US is perhaps the worst busybody in the world, and loves to interfere in other county's business (so long as it can benefit from it that is), and the UK has been known to tag along.

I don't particuarly want a near retarded maniac in power for another term

[SilverCougar]

SilverCouger

  Ok how about it took William Jefferson Clinton 8 years to mess it up and you expect George W. Bush to clean it up in 4 years. Would you at least agree that Saddam had 12 years to comply with the U.N. resolutions, and that the U.N. authorized the use of force if he did not comply. If anyone is crazy enough to use chemical weapons on his own population and then invade a peaceful neighbor, don't they really pose a threat to the free world?

  While we are on the subject and since I brought up former President Clinton, how about his turning down a chance to nab Osama when he had the chance?

  Ohhh and who gives a rats hind end if the rest of the world is "stern" with us?

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor did we give a damn what the rest of the world thought. I don't believe we need to pass a test, Kerry's words, before we act to remove a homicidal mad man from power.

  I would think the example of Quadaffi would be enough to convine anyone that we needed to remove Saddam, he had plenty of time to comply with the U.N. sanctions.

298221[/snapback]

Did I say Clinton was right to do what he did? No.

But it's *ALWAYS* always, always, always the responcibility of the current president to take the ball that was handed to him and run with it. Not ignore it and hope it'll go away. Because obviously it didn't.

And careing about how the world views us *is* importaint. Especialy since politicians can't seem to keep thier heads out of thier arshes. It's kinda nice to have global friends, not global enemies.

Oh and Osama.. Yeah, Clinten had his chance and fumbled. Now good ol' Georgie had a chance. But like his father, left something half assed finished, a dangerous guy left standing, and deflected his fumble to finish up what his father couldn't do.

Nice going back to pearl harbor there. If we did care about what the rest of the world thought, and was doing, it might have never happened. *might* because it's kinda really hard to tell what might have happened with a past analogy. But because we were being isolationalists, not giving a rats arsh, Japan thought we were a threat. Hmm....

Oh yeah, you speak of Clinton fubaring up... Bush sr. did one hell of a job doing the same thing. *HE* had the cnace to root out Saddam as well when he was in office. Whoops.. looks like his son had to do that. Oh wait... Now he's got Osama still at large, terrorists still plugging along as if nuthing happened, North Korea with nukes, and a good chuck of the world p***ed at us and thinking he's either some kind of clown or power hungry redneck.

You see what I'm getting at?

I've lost faith in the people that run this contry. And I will plug at it and elect those I feel *CAN* do a better job. And right now Bush isn't the one I'd feel comfortable with running this country for another 4 years.

Is Kerry? Maybe, maybe not. But if he fubars up, we can oust him oust of office in 4 years.