Kerry will never send troops overseas for oil...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
the terrorist ties are the grey part of the matter for me... it depends how closely tied Saddam was...

A few contacts are to be expected... but if there was evidence Saddam gave material support to Al Qaeda which DIRECTLY RESULTED in terrorattacks against the US... then I'd be for the invasion.

I think Kerry said as much as well. "Saddam did not attack us."

Kerry is fundamentally not prepared to pre-empt a WMD attack. He would respond only after an attack.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
There is a clear and public record of Halliburton overcharging the US gov't... this isn't a simple mistake or one time thing... it's a pattern of fraudulent behavior. And as a taxpayer, ITS COSTING ME MONEY.

Even if they paid without verifying and challenging, IT STILL IS CHEAPER THAN THE GOV'T DOING IT.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Ned


I think Kerry said as much as well. "Saddam did not attack us."

Kerry is fundamentally not prepared to pre-empt a WMD attack. He would respond only after an attack.

Ned,
That is correct and this is a different kind of war because of the weapons used, we can't afford to wait until we get hit, it is imperative we take the fight to them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


I think Kerry said as much as well. "Saddam did not attack us."

Kerry is fundamentally not prepared to pre-empt a WMD attack. He would respond only after an attack.

In order to "pre-empt" an attack, you need solid intelligence detailing such an attack. Bush has not "pre-empted" anything because Saddam wasn't a threat.

AND BTW, Where was all the Saddam hatred in the 80's? If he is such a threat, why were we arming him?

Maybe when we die, we can ask teh Reagan.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


Ned,
That is correct and this is a different kind of war because of the weapons used, we can't afford to wait until we get hit, it is imperative we take the fight to them.

Well who are "them"?

The problem with terrorists is, you don't know about them until they hit. And going into the ME to kill terrorists is all good and stuff... but what about domestic terrorists? What's going to stop some extremist Timothy McVeigh type?

Defense wins championships boys... we need a strong defense... not costly military operations with no clear cut victory scenarios.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Kerry will never send troops overseas for oil...

Originally posted by DanS

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_el_pr/heinz_kerry_1&printer=1

Besides the mistaken implication that we are in Iraq primarily for oil,

C'mon, you're smarter than this.

doesn't this strike y'all as a little naive and a dangerous thing to say? What happens if a revolution happens in Saudi Arabia and the spigot gets turned off? Could happen.

What strikes me as naive and dangerous is that anyone would believe that this statement would still hold ground in such a case.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Defiant


We are not leaving America unprotected, but the fact is we haven't had an attack since 9/11, thank God. ---

Global terrorism is at an all-time-high, and most of it is directed against America and it's allies. There are some attacks that have nothing to do with US, like Chechens/Russians, Pakistans/Indians and to some extent Palestinians/Israelis. But most of the attacks are responses to American actions recently or in the past.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Global terrorism is at an all-time-high, and most of it is directed against America and it's allies. There are some attacks that have nothing to do with US, like Chechens/Russians, Pakistans/Indians and to some extent Palestinians/Israelis. But most of the attacks are responses to American actions recently or in the past.

Why of course this is true. We support Israel. Since Arafat took power in the PLO, they have been attacking Americans. Then we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Fundies were outraged at our interference in Arab affairs. The attacks escallated. They will continue to escallate until we abandon all our interests in the ME and Israel - or we win.

Europe long ago realized that the source of the problem was Israel, and have largely aligned themselves with the PLO and terrorists to curry favor in the Arab world and to keep the terrorists at bay. They also refused (except for the UK and a few others) to get involved in Iraq for the same reason.

Did I miss anything?

[Patroklos]

6% of cargo containers that enter our ports are searched.... THAT'S 94% that is unchecked...

we have a Southern border that is hemorraging illegals...

Most aircargo is not searched...

These are simple things that need to be fixed, and Bush hasn't done squat.

And what political side do you think is the biggest block to improving this, Mr. Liberal.

It is a mute point, our society and way of life cannot support the type of security you want especially if your are hellbent on supporting your ultra liberal ideals at the same time. Hell, even Soviet society couldn't provide that type of security.

Not to mention the costs, it would take hundreds of billions in actual costs and lost trade to get to even 50% of containers checked.

And I would be more than happy to declare martial law along our southern borders and have the 3rd Fleet inspect all the boats coming from South America (they can destroy the ones that don't stop) and have Eglin and McDill interidct all the unregistered flights from the same. Would be great training. Once again, you and your ilke Sava are the problem.

[Pekka]

Ned, your first paragraph, I would agree that those are big reasons why terrorists are angry at the US. And I was pleased to see that you didn't give the 'Bush explanation' to it which is 'they hate our freedom. They are freedom haters'.

Second paragraph.. uh. You basically say Europe supports terrorism and pleases terrorists where ever they are because Europe doesn't want to engage with terrorists nowhere.

I say you missed a whole lot and that the second paragraph was racist and offending.

[Patroklos]

Global terrorism is at an all-time-high, and most of it is directed against America and it's allies. There are some attacks that have nothing to do with US, like Chechens/Russians, Pakistans/Indians and to some extent Palestinians/Israelis. But most of the attacks are responses to American actions recently or in the past.

Guess how many American's died in WWII before we officially entered the war. A few hundred. Guess how many people died after we recongized we couldn't stay out and entred. Several hundred thousand. Obviously once you mobalize and start the conflict in earnist the major casualties will start, winning or losing.

Not that you can even begin to equate our casualties to anything like a hemmorage of military power. Given the scale a breath and time involved in what we are doing, this is the most successful military venture in history. Our military strength, despite the fear monering OH MY GOD WE ARE SO OVERSTREATCED, is far higher than before Aghanistan simply from training and tactical and strategic development, at home and abroad.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned


Why of course this is true. We support Israel. Since Arafat took power in the PLO, they have been attacking Americans. Then we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Fundies were outraged at our interference in Arab affairs. The attacks escallated. They will continue to escallate until we abandon all our interests in the ME and Israel - or we win.
---

Explain what the definition of "winning" is in this case, and how you will "win"

[Patroklos]

and offending

which in no way menas it is not true

[Drachasor]

Well, this thread is full of a lot of misinformation.

First of all, Kerry is *not* anti-war. He is anti-incompetent-war. He wouldn't go into a place unless he had a good plan for getting in and getting out, and whatever was going to happen in the interim.

Just because Kerry disagrees with how Bush has handled the Iraq war does not mean that Kerry is against it. Now, if Kerry had been president we might not have gone in (after the inspectors had completed their job and found no WMDs), but we certainly would have kept sanctions up.

Kerry only ever considered that the U.N. should approve of wars a few decades ago. That was just after Vietnam, and you can't blame someone for having doubts about how America engages in wars after that. After that period he and throughout the campaign he has been consistent in holding the position that no entity should have veto power over America defending herself. His "global test" comment, when views in context, clearly means that he thinks we should be able to present a believeable arguement to other countries and U.S. citizens about why we are going to war. Bush simply didn't do that in Iraq. Kerry was only advocating good communication skills with other countries.

As for his terrorism comments in his recent interview. Kerry said that as a GOAL we should get terrorism to the level where it is a nuisance. He didn't say it was currently that way, in fact he said the opposite. He also said we need to aggressively combat it.

I see many people are quite misled by the Bush Campaign's tactic of ripping quotes out of context.

I would hope you'd be able to find legitimate things to dislike Kerry compared to Bush, as opposed to made-up ones.

-Drachasor

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Do we really think that a war with a 200 billion dollar price tag is going to help us economically?

It'll help Halliburton's economy