Safer

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Scarey news
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040802/1/3m4v1.html

Let me psoe this question. Do you think we are safer with operations in the heart of this hornets nest--with Afgan-Pakistan-Saudi's ect as new allies
---or do you feel safer to suck up to the french and germany like before?

---Do you think Kerry's backers aka Moore and others that are pissing the Saudi's off are helping or hurting.

Who do you think the French Germany and other backstabbers are pulling for in election.

Who do you think the Saudi's-Pakistan ect are pulling for.

Who do you think are the more beneficial allies in the fight against terrorist??

Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AR182]

it seems that this latest threat is more scary than the others because of alqaeda's depth of scoping out the different potential targets.

imo, without doubt saudi /pakistan are a more beneficial ally than france/germany because the main action is in the middle east.

i think france & germany are definitely pulling for kerry for obvious reasons.

 

[kosar]

i think france & germany are definitely pulling for kerry

I agree and i'd take it a step further. I'd bet that 80-85% of the worlds population is pulling for Kerry. Could be that this is just a terrorist lovin' world or it could be that this is the result of Bush acting like a reckless cowboy.

It's pretty telling that an incumbent in the middle of two so-called wars is gonna have a hell of a time beating a joker like Kerry. Look around, it's not just the 'backstabbers' in Europe who despise this admin in large numbers.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'd like you to go a step further and tell us which countries comprise this 80%. The only countries I could think of that would have only clearly over 50% would be France-Germany-N Korea-Spain getting close--You could add China if they knew he follow suit of last Dem administration.

--and I don't think France and N Korea could hardly be classified as allies.

 

[ironlock]

Hmmmm....as soon as we elect a democrat, all the haters of America will surely love us! They really don't like Cowboys. Ok Kosar.

Personally, I'm not concerned with the opinions of Arab Muslims, Chineses Communists, nor the German/French Socialists...it is however, clear that you are.

I'm concerned with the safety of Americans, the safety of the world's Christians, and protection of idea of liberty. Call me But that's just me,

 

[kosar]

I'm talking about the actual populations, Dogs. If every individual in this world was polled and asked who they support, I would say that it would be in the 80% range for Kerry. Obviously this is just my opinion, as it could never happen(the poll), but there is *some* indication when you consider that Brits opposed this invasion by a large majority. Same with Italians and Spaniards. Same with the entire Scandinavian region. Same with Asia. And this is based on polls in each respective country taken BEFORE the invasion. I hardly think that anybody has been swayed the other way since then.

I guess, now that you mention it, can you name even one country where the general population agreed with this thing to the tune of even 50%?

I think it can reasonably follow that most of the worlds people who denounced the invasion in overwhelming numbers would probably be supporting Kerry.

 

[kosar]

Hmmmm....as soon as we elect a democrat, all the haters of America will surely love us! They really don't like Cowboys. Ok Kosar.

Personally, I'm not concerned with the opinions of Arab Muslims, Chineses Communists, nor the German/French Socialists...it is however, clear that you are.

I'm concerned with the safety of Americans, the safety of the world's Christians, and protection of idea of liberty. Call me But that's just me,

Of course the traditional America haters would not change their mind if we elect a Democrat. But somehow we've managed to flip a large number of America neutrals to sympathize with the America haters.

We're concerned about exactly the same things, lock(although I might repace 'worlds Christians' with 'Americans worldwide'). I don't care too much about any other country, I don't care too much about Iraqi civilans or anything else in that country, especially if their liberation comes at such an expense to America in every way.

I suppose the difference is that we have different ideas about how to protect the things that we're concerned about and i'm convinced that this way is the wrong way. Republican/Democrat. Please.

Run Powell or McCain and i'll be first in line voting for them on November 2nd. But if Bush is running, put Elmer Fudd up against him (or Kerry, as the case might be) and i'll go the way of Fudd.

 

[Chanman]

From an AP report.

"Bush also took issue with Kerry's pronouncement this week that he and running mate John Edwards were proud of the fact that they opposed in the Senate the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq (search). Kerry said they had done so because "we knew the policy had to be changed."

"He's entitled to his view," Bush said. "But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them, and then brag about it."

Kerry's campaign responded that Kerry had served in the Vietnam War and questions linger about Bush's wartime service in the Texas Air National Guard."

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm

 

[djv]

Please if your going to talk about the 87 billion. At least find out the amount that was really going to be used for our guys, and gals. Then find out why they did not just vote on that part.
So we have info there looking at our buildings. Problem now is we don't know how old the info is.
As for safer. Of course were not any safer. Our country is to big and when they wish to do something it will not be easy to stop. And it wont matter who's in charge of the white house. They already have show-en there not scared of Bush so why would they be scared of anyone else. We don't fight suicide bombers with guided missiles.

 

[AR182]

kosar quote:"Run Powell or McCain and i'll be first in line voting for them on November 2nd."

don't be so sure that given the same info that bush received, that if mccain was president he wouldn't go into iraq also.

mccain is a big time hawk.

 

[kosar]

kosar quote:"Run Powell or McCain and i'll be first in line voting for them on November 2nd."

don't be so sure that given the same info that bush received, that if mccain was president he wouldn't go into iraq also.

mccain is a big time hawk.

Maybe, but I doubt it. In fact, I doubt many people would start planning a war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, just months after 9/11.

Let alone actually invade and stretch our armed forces to the limit in order to occupy a non-threat. Even if they had all these WMD, they were not even close to an imminent threat.

 

[Chanman]

Please if your going to talk about the 87 billion. At least find out the amount that was really going to be used for our guys, and gals. Then find out why they did not just vote on that part.
So we have info there looking at our buildings. Problem now is we don't know how old the info is.
As for safer. Of course were not any safer. Our country is to big and when they wish to do something it will not be easy to stop. And it wont matter who's in charge of the white house. They already have show-en there not scared of Bush so why would they be scared of anyone else. We don't fight suicide bombers with guided missiles.

Too bad you don't feel that way about M. Moore. So it won't matter who's in charge? Really.
If they are not scared why do they hide in caves and cover their face?

 

[smurphy]

mccain is a big time hawk.

But he's a hawk with a brain. You know McCain is cringing as he keeps the party line and supports Bush again.
McCain and other respectable ex-military politicians would have been thorough in Afghanistan and taken out Osama Bin Laden before making such a strategic catastrophe as over-extending our troops in a hostile country.
We are not safer with Bush and terrorists do not fear him more than anyone else. If anything, Bush gave terrorists a gift from Allah in the form of Iraq in Anarchy. The Al-Qaeda have more power there than ever before. THEY LOVE BUSH!

 

[shamrock]

to me there is ABSOLUTELY NO ACCEPTABLE REASON for not finishing the jobs in Afghanistan, capturing obl and eradicating al-quada, before moving on to Iraq. Zero! This is the groups & man that planned, funded & killed 3000 Americans on our soil. Nothing Saddam was currently doing, or was able to do trumped this importance in Afghanistan. he was being contained adequately with the restrictions. Now al-qaeda is disbursed & all over the Globe.

Secondly with the bombing of the 5 Christian churches in Iraq, we now see plainly this is no longer a al-queda terrorist/American dispute. It has escalated clearly to Christian/Muslims, and in my opinion will continue to play out that way, with the aid of the extreme Muslims. I'm not sure there is any desirable answer. But I know when shitt finally hits the fan, Afghanistan Pakistan & the Saudis sure aren't going to side with us & Israel! They will undoubtedly be on the side of their Muslim Brothers.

 

[smurphy]

But I know when shitt finally hits the fan, Afghanistan Pakistan & the Saudis sure aren't going to side with us & Israel! They will undoubtedly be on the side of their Muslim Brothers.

Totally agree. We are being petty regarding our differences with long-time European allies. They are democracies! Dissention and disagreement are part of the deal. Being such dear "allies" with monarchies and oppressive kingdoms in the ME is part of our whole problem. For the sake of oil, we overlook countless humane issues in SA. We allow them to essentially harbor terrorists in the name of profits. Yet, when it doesn't serve our wallet, we call out other nations for their inhumane crimes. This hypocracy is a major reason we are in such $hit in that region.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"We are not safer with Bush and terrorists do not fear him more than anyone else. If anything, Bush gave terrorists a gift from Allah in the form of Iraq in Anarchy. The Al-Qaeda have more power there than ever before. THEY LOVE BUSH!"

To believe that you would have to agree on the following---

the more we capture and kill the stronger they get.The more funds we cut off the more finacially secure they are.

The Saudi's Turkey Pakistan Afgan joining in fight against them makes things easier on them.

yep some more liberal logic.

I think the Muslim community hated us and our ways way before Bush came into office.

The bottom line They attacked us BEFORE we went into afgan and Iraq.

Ater that the president had a choice retaliate or do nothing.
To each his own on what should have been done. The problem arises on support after he makes decision and troops are involved.
We can choose to support him or not support him thats an opinion everyone is entitled to. Where I draw the line is from the left in supporting the enemy. Does anyone disagree the New York Times running prison article 43 straight days on front page and Micheal Moore film have supported the terrorist and not us.
---and lets go a step further as we now have iron clad evidence that they planned on attacking New York with bombs. Remember the post on liberal plans to intimidate the Republican convention with by throwing marbles under police horses and going to shooting range to get gunpowder on them to confuse bomb sniffing dogs?????? Yep if I was a terrorist planning attack sure would be nice to know I had so many accomplices to count on.
Sure didn't see much in news on conservative protesors at Dem convention. Did anyone.Maybe they were too busy working. Don't think so--you have entirely two seperate breeds of people.

 

[smurphy]

Remember the post on liberal plans to intimidate the Republican convention with by throwing marbles under police horses and going to shooting range to get gunpowder on them to confuse bomb sniffing dogs??????

Don't confuse extremists with moderate views against Bush.

I totally agree that we had a choice to retaliate and was 100% behind swift and thorough action against the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, and specifically Osama Bin Laden. We took out the Taliban, but did not accomplish the other. Iraq is now a breeding ground for more terrorism and serves only to support the Al'Qaeda even further. Saddam was a tyrant - but he was a tyrant that we essentially had under control - and at quite a savings. Simplay bad strategy IMO. ...And now we dont have enough resources in Afghanistan. It's not reported much, but situations are de-stabilizing there right now.

Should we withdraw? No. We have to deal with it, but we are now severely compromised in case action is needed elsewhere (ie Iran, N. Korea etc.)

The bottom line They attacked us BEFORE we went into afgan and Iraq.

THEY does not include Iraq. That has been well-proven. There are many more of THEY in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iraq was a DISTRACTION FROM the real war on terror.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Secondly with the bombing of the 5 Christian churches in Iraq, we now see plainly this is no longer a al-queda terrorist/American dispute. It has escalated clearly to Christian/Muslims, and in my opinion will continue to play out that way, with the aid of the extreme Muslims. QUOTE]

I really think this is an important point!

Surprisingly many here may not think so.

This is a look behind the curtain of what they are about and what their true motives are. It's almost as if they are getting cocky and have decided to mark off a few more things from the REAL check list. It's been easy to cloak their activiites and desires to this point. Now, especially if more events of this sort occur, I would really have to wonder what the take of the "centrists" :142lmao: on this board will be.

I truly think this was a particulary nasty move on their part. Very disturbing and not to be taken likely or forgotten.

As I have said on this board in the past....
It seems many haven't found the importance of our aggressive actions until the terrorists hit them at home.

 

[djv]

And now we here this info may be older then 9/11. And for us to think these idiots are scared of Bush or anyone. These guys don't think like we do. Folks that will fly into a building or tie some plastic explosives on them selfs. They don't have fear. There nuts and there minds are twisted.
This chit started way back when R Reagan was in office. Nothing he said or anyone else has done since then has changed anything. There just seems to be more of them now.

 

[Chanman]

No fear djv- except for pork, being belittled by women, having naked pictures taken, etc. We just are not stooping to their level. I don't see any of their leaders strapping on C4 to gain martyrdom either. as I said before- if they are not scared then why hide behind children, cover their face and so on.
I also think it started w/Carter...IMHO.