Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Bush's answer was as to the point as Kerry's.
quote:
No, I don‘t believe it‘s going to happen. I believe I‘m going to win
defeat them is to never waver
to be strong
to use every asset at our disposal
constantly stay on the offensive
spread liberty
we will defeat this enemy.
Kerry's Rebuttal
quote:
being strong and resolute and determined
hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are
not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden
goal: Osama bin Laden
They both speak about defeating the enemy and being strong however Kerry says that the war on terror has a uni-lateral front vs a multi-lateral front and doesn't say anything about being on the offensive.
Comment:
From previous speeches Kerry has stated that we should only go to war if we are attacked.
Saddam was a threat, no doubt about that. Especially if he were to acquire and WMD's. But the war in Iraq is not the same as the war against al-Qaeda. This "War on Terror" thing is ridiculous, it gives the Commander-in-Chief the authority to deploy troops anywhere in the world, for whatever reason he pleases. I don't like it. While it is necessary in a War on Terror to have this authority, the goals should be clearer than "stopping terrorism" because really, you can't stop it. It should have been a "War on al-Qaeda." Then he would have had to get seperate approval from Congress to declare War on Iraq.
Iran and North Korea were bigger threats since they were both actively working on nuclear weapons. This we knew for sure. Iraq was revenge for Bush. Bush was revenging the attempt on his daddy's life. Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq before 911. It had nothing to do with the war on terror. That is the excuse Bush is hiding behind to justify it. Bush diverted his search for the real enemy bin Laden to flex his muscle in Iraq and threaten a weak Saddam. They knew how much Saddam had been weakened and that militarily he was not much of a threat. He knew the Iraqi military could only put up a token resistance to US forces. He also knew Iran or North Korea wouldn't be as easy as Iraq and that invading either of those countries would have lead to 10's of thousands of deaths. Saddam was boxed in and contained. Half his country was a no fly zone. There was no immediate need to divert attention from destroying Al Qaeda to overthrow Saddam.
Kerry was right. Point to Kerry.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
most of the other terrorist groups are more focused on Israel
regardless, if there are any, they should have seperate Wars with a clear enemy declared.
If you declare War on al-Qaeda, it's over when you sign a treaty with them (yeah right!) or when you annhilate them.
If you declare War on Terrorism, when is it over? That's my main issue.
Dekka00 said this in post #6 : most of the other terrorist groups are more focused on Israel
regardless, if there are any, they should have seperate Wars with a clear enemy declared.
If you declare War on al-Qaeda, it's over when you sign a treaty with them (yeah right!) or when you annhilate them.
If you declare War on Terrorism, when is it over? That's my main issue.
Here is a link to a list of some of the terror groups and descriptions. When looking at the description take special note of which ones are INTERNATIONAL Terrorist.
Are you know suggesting we send US troops into Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza for example to fight those groups? Are you suggeting that only Bush is capable of fighting terrorists?
Presenting a list of every known terrorist group does nothing to advance this discussion. You said there are other terrorist groups that want to to do us harm. So specifily how they want to do us harm. State specifily how going into Iraq did anything to stop those groups.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
IsraelIs4Ever said this in post #4 : Iran and North Korea were bigger threats since they were both actively working on nuclear weapons.
It's true that both of those countries were actively working on developing nuclear weapons. However Iraq was (according to U.S. and foriegn intelligence) the only one out of the three to be actively planning attacks against the U.S.
Saddam Hussein had a recent active history of attacking his neighboring countries and using his own people as guinea pigs for his chemical weapons. Out of the three, he would appear to be the more imminent threat.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
10-02-2004 03:42 PM
