Bush Or Kerry

[Mason]

He also said he could start withdrawing troops in six months. Don't you think that is a little unrealistic?

Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.

We already have 9 out of 11 divisions over there, leaving from there, or on their way to there. So adding 2 more divisions would be extremely ridiculous since you can't have your whole force in one spot. Unless you mean he wants to recruit 2 more divisions worth of soldiers, which is even more ridiculous since the armed forces have failed to reach their quota by a few thousand this year. He can't force people to enlist. The only way he would be able to get that many people in is to reinstate the draft, or pull out of Iraq immediately. Then people might start signing up again

I did mean recruit 2 more divisions. And you're right, he can't force people to enlist. There's a lot of ways to encourage people to join though, all of which have a cost. However, the third most important priority for Americans at the moment is the whole Iraq issue. So I don't think you'd find a whole lot of opposition to using tax money to recruit more troops for that cause; especially if it would lead to a reduction in the number of causalities or lead to a quicker end to the US occupation of Iraq.

[KnightofNachos]

My vote means nothing in my bible-thumping state of Oklahoma, but I'm still going to vote for Kerry just so I can complain in the future.

[reagan80]

Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.

LMAO.........They're not going to send troops if Kerry is President. They remember Kerry's talk about it being the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." They're not going to send their troops to die for a lost cause since he and many of his colleagues already said that it was one. Way to go Kerry! Why don't you alienate some of our allies that are already there while you're at it? Oops, too late..........

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

[QUOTE=Mason]Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.[QUOTE]

Well who is going to send troops cause france and germany both said they aren't sending them no matter what. By the way, who do you think the terrorists want to win the election?

[Mason]

LMAO.........They're not going to send troops if Kerry is President. They remember Kerry's talk about it being the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." They're not going to send their troops to die for a lost cause since he and many of his colleagues already said that it was one. Way to go Kerry! Why don't you alienate some of our allies that are already there while you're at it? Oops, too late..........

Yeah, I remember Kerry's talk about that. And you know what? It wasn't Kerry that made the proposal to go to war on Iraq, that was Bush. It's not a lost cause though, nor has Kerry said it is. Other countries can come in now and pick up the pieces and basically claim the victory for the war. I don't think that's something they'd be against.

Well who is going to send troops cause france and germany both said they aren't sending them no matter what. By the way, who do you think the terrorists want to win the election?

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

Well they said on the news last night, they didn't care who was in power, they aren't going to iraq. Bin Laden could very well be dead already, and we don't know really. No one has heard from him from a while. And what does this hornets nest consist of....mostly terrorists and insurgents. Sounds like a war on terrorism to me. Also a head Al Queda member is beheading people in Iraq so we know Al Queda is there. And about who terrorists want to be president, yeah we could say Bush, but really deep down do you believe that?

[reagan80]

Yeah, I remember Kerry's talk about that. And you know what? It wasn't Kerry that made the proposal to go to war on Iraq, that was Bush. It's not a lost cause though, nor has Kerry said it is. Other countries can come in now and pick up the pieces and basically claim the victory for the war. I don't think that's something they'd be against.

First, you don't know whether or not the allies will start pouring into Iraq if Kerry gets elected just so they could give Bush's legacy a black eye. Personally, I doubt it.

Secondly, you think the terrorists or insurgents will stop killing the new "occupiers" that replace us or when Bush is gone?

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

Oh, so the Europeans didn't want to help our troops in Iraq just because the "cowboy" hurt their feelings. They wanted to leave our troops to die just to embarass Bush and help Kerry politically. **cliche' alert** With friends like these, who needs enemies?

That's interesting. UBL prefers a Bush re-election? I thought they would have preferred Kerry myself. Afterall, the North Koreans like him, Castro wuvs him, the Chinese do too, but terrorists don't? Are you sure? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's plan to outsource our national security to the corrupt and anti-American UN? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's potential plans to withdraw our forces out of Iraq prematurely? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's potential to repeal the Patriot Act? I can just look at his Senate record to find many reasons why terrorists would adore him such as the time when he voted against a bill that would have authorized the death penalty for terrorists.

Anyway, I'm going to leave a couple of ytmnd links to amuse my fellow Reich-Wingers out there...........http://kerry1.ytmnd.com/

http://kerry2.ytmnd.com/........See? Bush isn't the only one that can have fucked-up soundbites.

[Mason]

Well they said on the news last night, they didn't care who was in power, they aren't going to iraq. Bin Laden could very well be dead already, and we don't know really. No one has heard from him from a while. And what does this hornets nest consist of....mostly terrorists and insurgents. Sounds like a war on terrorism to me. Also a head Al Queda member is beheading people in Iraq so we know Al Queda is there. And about who terrorists want to be president, yeah we could say Bush, but really deep down do you believe that?

*shrug* Politicians say a lot of things, then they change their minds and say something else. You're right, they might not ever go to Iraq. It can't help to have an attitude of "we don't need your help" though, when we actually do need their help.

There's been pretty recent confirmed audio tapes/videos of Bin Laden preaching against the sins of the US, so he's likely still alive. Still, the US really dropped the ball in trying to track him down.

And that hornet's nest is full of regular people. Imagine if some country invaded the US and attempted to oust the government because the US didn't abide by the rules of the UN. Do you think people in the US would be very happy with that? Probably not, even if they don't agree with Bush. No one likes having their country invaded.

And just because there's Al Queda operatives working in Iraq doesn't mean there's any connection. Guess what, there's Al Queda operatives here in the US too. That doesn't mean we're aiding them or that we want them here in the least; quite obviously we don't. Same goes for Iraq.

Lastly, I don't really know which they'd prefer. Bush is kind of fanatical about taking down terrorism, but Kerry would likely try to get some kind of global force together on the matter. The latter would likely be more effective, but the former is probably more scary right now.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

*shrug* Politicians say a lot of things, then they change their minds and say something else. You're right, they might not ever go to Iraq. It can't help to have an attitude of "we don't need your help" though, when we actually do need their help.

There's been pretty recent confirmed audio tapes/videos of Bin Laden preaching against the sins of the US, so he's likely still alive. Still, the US really dropped the ball in trying to track him down.

And that hornet's nest is full of regular people. Imagine if some country invaded the US and attempted to oust the government because the US didn't abide by the rules of the UN. Do you think people in the US would be very happy with that? Probably not, even if they don't agree with Bush. No one likes having their country invaded.

And just because there's Al Queda operatives working in Iraq doesn't mean there's any connection. Guess what, there's Al Queda operatives here in the US too. That doesn't mean we're aiding them or that we want them here in the least; quite obviously we don't. Same goes for Iraq.

Lastly, I don't really know which they'd prefer. Bush is kind of fanatical about taking down terrorism, but Kerry would likely try to get some kind of global force together on the matter. The latter would likely be more effective, but the former is probably more scary right now.

I don't know if Kerry would be more effective, but these "hornets", well do you know how many insurgents there are? Most aren't regular people, most are foreign fighters. well if you remember that article titled "the connection" said Al Queda was there, is that just a coincidince, possibly, but i wouldn't bet on it. i don't have a go it alone attitude, but if the French don't want to help us thats fine, but i would say don't expect any help from us, unless we are directly involved. In Iraq a couple hundred thugs are controlling entire cities, and no longer will that be the case. sammara has fallen to Iraqi and US forces and other cities will do the same. These terrorists are cowards and they will keep the kidnapping and beheading until someone does something about it. This is the chance to stop it, every choice you make there is a risk involved, why not take the chance to put terrorists to justice?

[MusikFreak00]

you summed up what i was gonna say leatherman, except we have 135,000 people there now. That's more than enough to get the job done. Problem is terrorists can still get in and out of the country fairly easy. That needs to stop.

[GundamGuy]

I don't know if Kerry would be more effective, but these "hornets", well do you know how many insurgents there are? Most aren't regular people, most are foreign fighters.

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

[Ziegfried]

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

I love how he keeps insinuating that the Kerry-supporters didn't want to remove Saddam Hussein from power at all.

[EMarble]

hmmm 2 young 2 vote... only 15 though I would vote bush, I think it would be a terrible idea to change presidents when were right in the middle of the terroist activity . Though u have 2 give osama credit for playing the best damn game of hide and go seek that the world has ever seen (-_-).

[reagan80]

I love how he keeps insinuating that the Kerry-supporters didn't want to remove Saddam Hussein from power at all.

Ha, that's a good one. Kerry didn't even want to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait in '91. What makes you think he would ever use force to remove Saddam in Baghdad? Kerry's plan to topple Hussein would have involved the UN and sanctions and Saddam's mortality. What an effective plan.......

Yeah, Saddam would have croaked of natural causes and Uday or Qusay would have continued their father's work if Kerry had it his way. Kerry-supporters might have wanted Saddam's removal, but the only person that effectively did that was the shrub........

Oh, and don't tell me Kerry would have used the CIA to overthrow his regime. This is the same Kerry with a Senate voting record of trying to emasculate the intelligence services with massive budget cuts. Kerry once tried to pass an intelligence spending bill with billions of dollars in budget cuts that it was so reckless that even these guys didn't vote for it...........

"Kerry's amendment failed 75 to 20 -- opposed by his Massachusetts colleague, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy; a future Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida; and the Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia."

Yes indeed, Kerry's buddy, Ted fuckin' Kennedy, didn't even vote for the bill........

And you people wonder why we had shitty intel going into Iraq............

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

Just telling you there are a lot of foreign fighters from Iran and Syria, as what i hear and read. A few people don't want this new Iraq to become a democracy, not the majority. But you are right, there is no way to tell how many are foriegn and how many are from Iraq. WHy is John Kerry running on his four months in the service rather than his 19 years in the senate?