++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
Lets have a poll, bush vs kerry
Lets have a poll, bush vs kerry
Buy on AliExpress.com
US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (36 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
- Status
Actually, thats a great idea Tom. Can one of you mods do it?
Buy on AliExpress.com
actually, you are completely wrong. don't you find it telling that terrorists want Kerry to win? So you just want to let Al-Qaeda and similar groups continue bombing trains, killing civilians, etc to alter elections, without doing anything against them, so as n ot to provoke them? Do you really believe that you can pacify terrorists? it isn't just the US that radical Islam hates-the US is merely the centerpoint of usual anti-Christian and anti-Semitic feelings (as well as Israel, of course) people like Osama bin-Laden are not stupid-they know that millions of people hate the US-it's so easy to hate the US! terrorists know that they have a great position-most westerners have no interest in a long, drawn out battle with terrorism, especially if they believe that the terrorists target merely a country that they don't even like-a contry that many people despise. Kerry simply does not have the strength (single-mendedness, narrowmindedness, whatever you see it as) to stand up to all the opposition he would have to continue the war on terror as it is currently being handled. (not to say the way it is being fought now is perfect-far from it!)
I'm just saying that Bush has been concentrating on the wrong person, the primary goal became Hussain, not Bin Ladin.
Was Bush has done is making the world a really unsafe place to live in.
And besides it's not just terrorism I'm talking about; I'm talking about the envoirment as well.
What Kerry has is support around the world.
Was Bush has done is making the world a really unsafe place to live in.
And besides it's not just terrorism I'm talking about; I'm talking about the envoirment as well.
What Kerry has is support around the world.
so what if Kerry has the world's support? anyway, it actually is not true. Kerry, if elected, is not going to get that much support. Bush doesn't get a lot of support because what he has done in Iraq and other places (regardless of success) shows that the US is really not dependant on other countries. for better or for worse, we are the worlds only super-power, and we must have the strength to act alone when needed. Also, just because there is nothing in the media about the hunt for bin-Laden, I can guarrantee that very strong efforts are being made. with Hussein, I think it is a case where the right thing was done for the wrong reason. criminally fauly intelligence led Bush to make the decision to topple Saddam through an invasion. All I can say is that I hope that the intelligence community learns a lesson from this, and that Bush doesn't lose the election because of intelligence failures. However, even though the post-invasion scenario in Iraq is very bad, toppling Saddam removed not only a dangerous long-term threat to the US, but, despite some very wrong and misleading rhetoric, has freed a country from a barbaric dictator. now, of course, the US has been made to look like a heavy-handed occupation force, the Pentagon would like nothing better than to be able to have Iraq peaceful, with a moderate democratic government, and be able to return home. but instead, our intentions are twisted around so that your average Muslim teenager in Iraq probably hates the US, and wants to go kill as many american soldiers as possible, when all those soldiers want to do is get Iraq under control, give the Iraqi people a better life, and get the hell out of there. and while I don't know much about Bush's enviromental policies, I do think that we are in agreement there
I had no idea that there were so many Bush supporters here! just going on who's replied on this forum-very surprised!
I had no idea that there were so many Bush supporters here! just going on who's replied on this forum-very surprised!
China is not a superpower at the moment-in ten years maybe, but not right now.
who said anything about supplanting the UN? (if that's what you meant-your sentence wasn't too clear) just because the US does something with out UN approval doesn't mean that we are trying to replace the UN! that's rather faulty on the logic and every country has a right to act in the interest of it's citizens. The US is trying to prevent further devestating attacks against it's citizens. I don't have a problem with that. we are not going around bullying other countries at all. acting aggresively to protect your country is not bullying.
who said anything about supplanting the UN? (if that's what you meant-your sentence wasn't too clear) just because the US does something with out UN approval doesn't mean that we are trying to replace the UN! that's rather faulty on the logic
and every country has a right to act in the interest of it's citizens. The US is trying to prevent further devestating attacks against it's citizens. I don't have a problem with that. we are not going around bullying other countries at all. acting aggresively to protect your country is not bullying.
What? Did all the terrorists take a CNN/New York Times poll or something? Did Gallup random dial cell phones listed in the Terrorist Yellow Pages to develop a sample study with +/- 2% error? 
Don't make bogus claims unless you can back them up with sources. It's bad enough that we have political candidates in this country who don't do that.
Until then, you're just blowing smoke out of your rectum.
Don't make bogus claims unless you can back them up with sources. It's bad enough that we have political candidates in this country who don't do that.
Until then, you're just blowing smoke out of your rectum.
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Right, I can just hear it now.
France: "Kerry is President. Now we can send our troops to Iraq".
Germany: "Now the war on Iraq is reasonable".
Right, I can just hear it now.
France: "Kerry is President. Now we can send our troops to Iraq".
Germany: "Now the war on Iraq is reasonable".
Neither of the U.S. presidential candidates have shown any real acknowledgement of this. While Kerry can talk the talk of a "global coalition", even he doesn't seem to recognize that global terror networks are more like the mafia and must be fought with global anti-terrorist networks.
It's bad enough when the U.S. CIA and FBI don't collaborate on anti-terrorist intelligence and operations. It 's even worse if countries had to go it alone -- whether the U.S., the Phillippines, Pakistan, etc. -- against operations located everywhere from Indonesia to the tri-border terrorism hotbed of Paraguay/Argentina/Brazil.
Kaiser, regardless of him being Milan's president, do you agree, or rather like Berlusconi as Italy's PM?
Personally, I can't imagine Kerry being worse than Bush, but even if Kerry is in office I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. It's all rudyard kipling's fault. "A white man's burden"
Personally, I can't imagine Kerry being worse than Bush, but even if Kerry is in office I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. It's all rudyard kipling's fault. "A white man's burden"
- Status