Bush blamed for Hurricanes

[Goodwill]

God help us all if Kerry is elected

[southpaw]

Thanks LP

You ever heard of appeasement? It doesn't work. Especially with despots and terrorists.

Neville Clinton oops I mean Chamberlain was prime minister of Britain the appeasement route (kind of like Bill Clinton in the 90's) to Hitler and what happened?

Churchill get the nod in dire times and rallies the British to victory, or course with our help. Bush like Churchill is a man of conviction and character. Kerry has neither of these qualities, he's more like Chamberlain.

Bush is a deliberate man while Kerry is affable.

[once a runner]

First of all, I was not against the first war with Iraq. But in a feeble attempt to try to understand the terrorists motives I was just wondering if they thought it was better to attack while the son of Bush I was the president. It was no secret that he was running and that he had a real shot to win. Nobody can say for certain if they would have attacked if Gore was in the White House. I'll admit they probably would have, but can't say for certain. I'm just saying the Bush II was an attractive target for the terrorists.

Now, if the terrorists really want Kerry to win, why don't they at least attempt some kind of attack on us now? I would think that would discredit Bush completely about us being safer. It's a tight race, it wouldn't take much to push the vote one way or another.

Maybe Saddam thought like Hitler, but he certainly didn't have his resources. My thoughts are Saddam attacked Kuwait because they were easy target, but very rich in oil. To think he could have taken on Israel is laughable.

[fleaflicker]

Once a runner, the reason terrorists wouldn't try it now is because it would probably swing the race in Bush's favor. Look how patriotic everybody became after 9-11, and how they rallied around the president and the American flag. Maybe it would totally bust up his campaign, but more than likely, it would bust up Kerry's. That's why they're going to wait until after the election to attack.

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="68044"]Once a runner, the reason terrorists wouldn't try it now is because it would probably swing the race in Bush's favor. Look how patriotic everybody became after 9-11, and how they rallied around the president and the American flag. Maybe it would totally bust up his campaign, but more than likely, it would bust up Kerry's. That's why they're going to wait until after the election to attack.[/quote]

So, you are admitting that terrorists would prefer Kerry in the WH. Thank you, I've been trying to tell you that all along. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they know the policy of appeasement would be instituted again? Is that any way to deal with terrorists? If you think so, you may consider a move to France.

Terrorists have honed in on 2 nations primarily - Israel and the US. Israel because they hate Jews, and the US because they hate the fact that we have the most successful country in the history of the world. Appeasing them now only will embolden and strengthen them for a future attack.

[southpaw]

1. The terrorists would have attacked 9/11 regardless of who was Pres.

2. I don't think Saddam was a rational thinker. It was his utlimate goal to attack Israel. Given time he would have fulfilled that goal.

3. Ever think that the terrorists can't attack the US right now? Give our soldiers and law enforcement people credit the last 3 year for keeping us safe.

[fleaflicker]

Southpaw, common sense can tell you the terrorists would like Kerry. They hope that he'll let down his guard, and make life a bit easier on them, whereas Bush wouldn't, even if it means needlessly killing many of our troops. The main issue I have is just that though, the needless killing of out troops. If we're going to go and fight terrorists, shouldn't they be enough of a priority to warrant the proper equipment and training for those who are sent after them?
By the way, Kerry isn't going to bring on anymore terrorists attacks just by being President. He would have to leave an opening for that to happen, just like your guy Bush would.

[LionPride]

flea - something I don't understand about you. You keep harping about the troops not having enough proper equipment and training. Do you honestly believe that would be any different today if Al Gore was elected in 2000? How about if John Kerry ran in 2000 and won?

John Kerry has a 20 year voting history of slashing defense money and voting against new defense systems, yet you come on here and blame Bush for them not having the proper equipment.

I honestly do not understand you rationale here. Republicans typically support more money for defense, Democrats support more money for entitlement programs. Isn't it entirely possible that if the troops don't have the best of equipment today, it could be because of all the times John Kerry and people like him voted to slash their budget?