If Kerry becomes Prez

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest

Well, then why were you raising the initial question, if you don't have any ideas yourself about how to prevent attacks against the US? If you think Kerry will make poor choices, you must be able to identify choices better than you think he'll make.

I am not asking whether Kerry will make 'poor' choices. I'm asking if Kerry is willing to make a tough choice and stick with it or will he float along with public opinion a la
Clinton or is incapable of making a choice to put american troops at risk a la Carter.

Neither the Taliban nor Iraq threatened us.

Both countries clearly supported terrorist activites.

OBL is still in operation.

Just barely.

Far more people in Afghanistan and Iraq now hates us then before.

Crystal ball results?

Both countries are anarchic and even more desperate than they were.

Iraq is more anarchic (for the time being). Afghanistan is vastly improved compared to the Taliban/warlords. At least there is hope for a stable democratic government soem time in the future. I'm also willing to bet that very few people have been tortured, beheaded, etc since we deposed the former 'governments'.

How has our security been improved? These wars, as predicted, were not effective in reducing the risk of attack against Americans, so what was the point?

What a crock!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Bringing us to the brink of Armeggedon for something which could have been done through secret diplomatic discussions is a diplomacy failure.

A diplomatic failure yes but he did act. I'm not a Kennedy supporter.

I guess about the same amount that went in Somalia... that was enough for 'action'?

Yes.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Spiffor

NATO has just decided to commit more troops. Maybe because Dubya has finally understood it is much smarter to associate others to your military adventures?

NATO makes a choice to finally support the beginnings of democracy in Afghanistan and you decide that GWB has 'seen the light'. Maybe it has more to do with NATO members privately admitting they should have supported the US (now that the rhetoric phase is over).

[Akka]

SH, you're just funny ^^

You start a thread to spill your contempt over Kerry. You start to say all the bad things that will, would, could happen because of him/liberals.

Then, on EACH AND EVERY of your arguments, you're proved wrong by fact.
And you continue to bring another arguments, which are again proved wrong.

And still, despite all this, you continue to support the guy who lied, made a mess of anything, f*cked up his priority. And you dismiss the guys who did the job you pretend they didn't.

If Bush has been a liberal, I quite see how you would have denounced all his mistakes. It's not really what happened and which work was done which interests you, it's just what can give you a pretext to say that liberals are bad.

Ah well, no it's not funny, it's just pathetic.

[Capt Dizle]

I support the Bush doctrine, but I really would like to see an increased intelligence capcity. Kerry would throw out the doctrine and reinstall a typical weak liberal foreign policy. Taiwan would be lost in Kerry presidency.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SpencerH
NATO makes a choice to finally support the beginnings of democracy in Afghanistan and you decide that GWB has 'seen the light'. Maybe it has more to do with NATO members privately admitting they should have supported the US (now that the rhetoric phase is over).

NATO troops have done peacekeeping in Iraq as soon as the conflict was over. I cannot say (because I don't know) who took part in the conflict itself.

Since the Talibans are regrouping, it was deemed useful to increase the western force in Afghanistan. Bush could have wanted to let the US do the job alone. He didn't.

[Dis]

Originally posted by oedo
If Kerry becomes Prez, my avatar in '05 will be the Stars and Stripes.

I'll hold you to that

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taiwan would be lost in Kerry presidency.

If China attacks, Taiwan would be lost in a Bush presidency as well. We ain't attacking the PRC for a small island.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Taiwan would be lost in Kerry presidency.

If China attacks, Taiwan would be lost in a Bush presidency as well. We ain't attacking the PRC for a small island.

Go to the other thread, but I think you're completely wrong. For starters, we're not attacking the PRC, but defending Taiwan, an important semantic difference. For that matter, I see no reason why Kerry wouldn't defend Taiwan under these circumstances too. It wouldn't be a Vietnam, it would be a fight in which the US uses naval and air assets to block a Chinese invasion, there is no need to get involved with ground forces on the Chinese mainland. For that matter, we'd definately have the support of the people of Taiwan for our efforts, an Taiwan is a true democracy that we'd be defending against a totalitarian regime. (Vietnam was definately not much of a Democracy, and that's a key reason the left in the US became disalusioned with the war.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The enemy won't be some third-rate power like Iraq. China is a significant enemy. And it WILL end up with attacking China, because the Chinese are not going to simply be content with losing Taiwan in a fight. They'll probably continue to send missles over hitting our troops there.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The enemy won't be some third-rate power like Iraq. China is a significant enemy. And it WILL end up with attacking China, because the Chinese are not going to simply be content with losing Taiwan in a fight. They'll probably continue to send missles over hitting our troops there.

Uh, for starters we don't really need to send troops there, just air assets and navy assets. (The navy assets would be tougher to target and are capable of shooting down missiles fired at them.) China really can't justify shooting missiles left and right at Taiwan. The reason for an invasion is to unify the island with the mainland, not destroy it. The US also can win air superiority and take out most of these missiles, who mostly need to be based close to Taiwan in order to reach it. Airpower can also strike other Chinese tactical and strategic targets. See the other thread for the reasons I'm confident the US can win air superiority if this conflict occured.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Akka
SH, you're just funny ^^

You start a thread to spill your contempt over Kerry. You start to say all the bad things that will, would, could happen because of him/liberals.

Then, on EACH AND EVERY of your arguments, you're proved wrong by fact.
And you continue to bring another arguments, which are again proved wrong.

And still, despite all this, you continue to support the guy who lied, made a mess of anything, f*cked up his priority. And you dismiss the guys who did the job you pretend they didn't.

If Bush has been a liberal, I quite see how you would have denounced all his mistakes. It's not really what happened and which work was done which interests you, it's just what can give you a pretext to say that liberals are bad.

Ah well, no it's not funny, it's just pathetic.

Learn to read. Someday when you're out of grade school it'll be useful.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by SpencerH


NATO makes a choice to finally support the beginnings of democracy in Afghanistan and you decide that GWB has 'seen the light'. Maybe it has more to do with NATO members privately admitting they should have supported the US (now that the rhetoric phase is over).

But Bush did not want NATO involvement in Afghanistan in the first place. The Europeans really had to grovel in the dust to make sure that NATO forces could be deployed. Their reason was thet they saw that Afghanistan was turning into a slaughterhouse. The massacre of 3000 taliban prisoners by American and Warlord forces for instance.

[Akka]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Learn to read. Someday when you're out of grade school it'll be useful.

I do know how to read, which allowed me to see the amount of bullsh*t you spilled on this thread, just to see it countered at every corner.