Rich in Ohio Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 All we keep hearing about from lurch is how he served his country well, and as a hero, and how that somehow qualifies him to better protect and defend our great nation. Now I have said on this board many times, that I respect JK service to our country as I do any and every one who served honorably. What I am talking about is the fact that he had a whopping 4months of service driving a boat around the rivers of Vietnam. On the other hand GWB has for over three years now conducted a successful war on terrorism. Freeing 30 some million people in Afghanistan, and another 2 million in Iraq. Now, I will give you the fact that not all has been perfect, those of us who understand these things realize that war is not always a perfect science. However, what I am talking about is the fact that GWB has been working this problem for better then three years now and JK spent a few months zipping around on a boat getting shot at occasionally. How does this make JK better qualified in any way shape or form? Oh well, for those of you GWB haters…begin flaming away. No intellectual responses anticipated. But for all others please let me know what you think about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 By your logic, every incumbent president deserves to be re-elected because he's had four years' more experience in the job than the other guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 By your logic, every incumbent president deserves to be re-elected because he's had four years' more experience in the job than the other guy. 11695[/snapback] Nice try, but you know that is not what he said. He was not simply comparing GW's 4 years as president, he was citing the fact that GW has spent the last 3 years fighting a very effective war against terrorism. He has 3 years of experience leading the war on terrorism. Kerry has 4 months of fighting in a war that occurred 30+ years ago. You can claim that Kerry has more military experience, but by doing so you ignore the experience GW has gained leading the country in war the last 3 years. Does GW have as much Vietnam experience? No. Does GW have more experience in dealing with the war at hand? Yes and that is more important to me. Kerry's Vietnam experience does nothing to prove that he will be an effective president in dealing with the current war on terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 All we keep hearing about from lurch is how he served his country well, and as a hero, and how that somehow qualifies him to better protect and defend our great nation. Now I have said on this board many times, that I respect JK service to our country as I do any and every one who served honorably. What I am talking about is the fact that he had a whopping 4months of service driving a boat around the rivers of Vietnam. On the other hand GWB has for over three years now conducted a successful war on terrorism. Freeing 30 some million people in Afghanistan, and another 2 million in Iraq. Now, I will give you the fact that not all has been perfect, those of us who understand these things realize that war is not always a perfect science. However, what I am talking about is the fact that GWB has been working this problem for better then three years now and JK spent a few months zipping around on a boat getting shot at occasionally. How does this make JK better qualified in any way shape or form? Oh well, for those of you GWB haters…begin flaming away. No intellectual responses anticipated. But for all others please let me know what you think about this. 11687[/snapback] I do not agree that the war on terrorism has been successful. We still have numerous terrorist attacks still happening, Osama Bin Laden is still out there, airport security has marginally improved, we are handing out terror alerts on aged information, and in Afghanistan, threats still abound. We cannot possibly WIN the war on terror until the Iraqi incursion reaches its conclusion. THEN we can focus on what is REALLY important to preserving the freedom and security of the United States. John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had. Beyond that, they aren't much different. If Bush is re-elected, we are in much more danger, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Does GW have more experience in dealing with the war at hand? Yes and that is more important to me. Kerry's Vietnam experience does nothing to prove that he will be an effective president in dealing with the current war on terrorism. 11717[/snapback] You know, Herbert Hoover had a lot more experience in dealing with the national economy at hand in 1932 than Franklin Roosevelt did. Good thing the electorate didn't base its decision on that factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 You know, Herbert Hoover had a lot more experience in dealing with the national economy at hand in 1932 than Franklin Roosevelt did. Good thing the electorate didn't base its decision on that factor. 11721[/snapback] That IS true! Hoover also had a lot of experience with economic planning for the recovery effort after World War I. Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression. His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had. One of the biggest fallacies and pie in the sky ideas is that if Kerry is elected, the rest of the world, especially France, Germany and Russia, will suddenly be our best friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 One of the biggest fallacies and pie in the sky ideas is that if Kerry is elected, the rest of the world, especially France, Germany and Russia, will suddenly be our best friends. 11728[/snapback] You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia! YOU WOULD BE wrong. I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be. Ah, right...I forgot...up until Jan 2000, the Middle East just LOVED the United States. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Ah, right...I forgot...up until Jan 2000, the Middle East just LOVED the United States. Silly me. 11762[/snapback] Our hopeless policy towards Israel prevents us from having a much better standing in the Arab community. Since January 2000, those communities have been angered by the policy I stated above. Relations have soured, and even the more pro-Western countries in the region are fast becoming alienated. Electing Kerry would vastly improve our relations, UNLESS Kerry shows any sort of a tendency toward more support for Israel... then we are screwed regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 War on terrorism? What a joke. We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible. I wish this administration had its priorities in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 War on terrorism? What a joke. We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible. I wish this administration had its priorities in order. 11791[/snapback] Look at the facts. Have we had another terrorist attack on our country? You and I can't say for sure how many attacks have been prevented, but the fact that there has been zero since 9/11 indicates a continued success on the war on terror. Obviously it would be nice to get OBL, but the facts show that his network has been severely damaged and that dozens of his top aides have been captured. Why is that a joke to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves. 11790[/snapback] Nope, I'm not kidding myself.. they wouldn't have a reason to fight if Israel has their stuff together, but they don't. I never said he was going to change, I said IF he changes it... They hate US because of our ties with Israel. If we forced them to get their act together, it would be a major success. Israel gives us NO benefits that I can see. We gat a hell of a lot more from Turkey than we ever did or do with Israel... I can't think of ANY bases we have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Why is that a joke to you? 11817[/snapback] I think a great many people fail to understand that the "War on Terrorism" is far more encompassing than just capturing bin Laden. The common view seems to be that the war must only involve direct, linear connections to 9/11...meaning Iraq (and North Korea and Iran, when we get around to it) are irrelevent sideshows. The actuality, which is grieviously misunderstood, is that 9/11 both represents and precipitated a fundamental policy shift in how the US deals with terrorism, and the policy shift itself cast Iraq and Saddam Hussein in a new light regardless of any involvement (or - far more likely - lack thereof) with al Qaeda and 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Where exactly has Kerry said he's going to change Israel policy? And if you think for one second that if we turned our backs on Israel that Islamic Radicals would stop hating us, you're kidding yourselves. 11790[/snapback] Nope, I'm not kidding myself.. they wouldn't have a reason to fight if Israel has their stuff together, but they don't. I never said he was going to change, I said IF he changes it... They hate US because of our ties with Israel. If we forced them to get their act together, it would be a major success. Israel gives us NO benefits that I can see. We gat a hell of a lot more from Turkey than we ever did or do with Israel... I can't think of ANY bases we have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia! YOU WOULD BE wrong. I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be. 11740[/snapback] My understanding is that every country that supported us in Gulf War I, has supported us in this one, with the exception of France. Germany wasn't there the first time. Neither was Russia. Turkey has cooperated in much the same way as before. So has Seria. But ya gotta really wonder about Syria. But the constant notion that the U.S. went it alone is being spoken by those who just don't know any better, or who are not being honest. And what were some of the results of our long standing work for peace in the Middle East? The assasination of the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat by comes to mind. 9-11 was planned DURING the Clinton Administration. Terrorism has been increasing, not decreasing. And Bush isn't causing it, any more than he caused hurricane Charlie. The Middle East needs reform. Nothing we're doing in the past was getting done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I think a great many people fail to understand that the "War on Terrorism" is far more encompassing than just capturing bin Laden. The common view seems to be that the war must only involve direct, linear connections to 9/11...meaning Iraq (and North Korea and Iran, when we get around to it) are irrelevent sideshows. The actuality, which is grieviously misunderstood, is that 9/11 both represents and precipitated a fundamental policy shift in how the US deals with terrorism, and the policy shift itself cast Iraq and Saddam Hussein in a new light regardless of any involvement (or - far more likely - lack thereof) with al Qaeda and 9/11. 11846[/snapback] If you read the papers, books, etc., that have come out on the subject (as I know you have), you realize that Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle et al had a hard on for Iraq long before September 11th. The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration wanted to do long before 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 If you read the papers, books, etc., that have come out on the subject (as I know you have), you realize that Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle et al had a hard on for Iraq long before September 11th. The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration want to do long before 9/11. 11939[/snapback] Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 That IS true! Hoover also had a lot of experience with economic planning for the recovery effort after World War I. Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression. His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration. 11726[/snapback] What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits? Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts