ONE QUESTION: Can someone name one terrorist act on American soil since 9/11?

And if not how do you think that George Bush is not doing the job properly? And remember who was in the White House for the 8 years before Bush got there. Bush was only in the White house 9 months when the attacks occured.


John Kerry would have pussy footed around until utter kaos broke out over what we were going to do.....Kerry wants other countries to give us the okay to protect our country.....Lord knows, I don't want the Frenchies deciding when my country can defend itself....especially when they are not willing to jump in and fight with us.....


Someone please give a simple reason why they are voting for kerry that makes since ...not all this just anyone is better than bush b.s.


What happened to voting for the best candidate and not the party you belong to.

I agree with you 110%. Kerry already stated that he will wait until we are attacked to strike back, which is absurd. but be warned, a flame war is about to start....

Kerry would have consulted the world leaders first. Oh yeah that will do. As the smoke and fire with American body parts laying all over the streets and on top of buildings, P Kerry will consult with world leaders for a join answer to the terrorist act. Wow!! that's a scary thought.

All I can say about Kerry and his attacks against Bush is........Hind sight is 20/20. I hope the American people can judge for themselves which guy is best, and will do the best job for us.

I am for the present Admin cause the other guy with a Plan, oh he has a plan just plain isn't makin sense and he's not saying what will really happen if he's the P.

ONE QUESTION: Can someone name one terrorist act on American soil since 9/11?

And if not how do you think that George Bush is not doing the job properly? And remember who was in the White House for the 8 years before Bush got there. Bush was only in the White house 9 months when the attacks occured.

John Kerry would have pussy footed around until utter kaos broke out over what we were going to do.....Kerry wants other countries to give us the okay to protect our country.....Lord knows, I don't want the Frenchies deciding when my country can defend itself....especially when they are not willing to jump in and fight with us.....


Someone please give a simple reason why they are voting for kerry that makes since ...not all this just anyone is better than bush b.s.


What happened to voting for the best candidate and not the party you belong to.


what exactly has he done to protect the US? he invaded and attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 nor had the capacity to build WMD's since 1992...why do some of you continue to deny this? why did Bush outsource the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghan warlords that used to work for Bin Laden?

if he had waited and let the inspectors do their jobs perhaps most the American lives and innocent Iraqi civilians could have been avoided...but he rushed it, and now what? Kerry never said he wasn't for the war, he voted for it...but what some of you fail to understand is that there was a right way and wrong way to go about it...Bush chose the wrong way, rushed it without a clear plan, without a greater number of allies...the more allies we have the better our chances are of better intelligence and lessens our burden of war - casualties and cost

quit trying to justify Bush's mistake by somehow tieing Iraq with WMDs and terrorism

that's why i'm voting for "anyone but Bush"

what exactly has he done to protect the US? he invaded and attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 nor had the capacity to build WMD's since 1992...why do some of you continue to deny this? why did Bush outsource the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghan warlords that used to work for Bin Laden?

if he had waited and let the inspectors do their jobs perhaps most the American lives and innocent Iraqi civilians could have been avoided...but he rushed it, and now what? Kerry never said he wasn't for the war, he voted for it...but what some of you fail to understand is that there was a right way and wrong way to go about it...Bush chose the wrong way, rushed it without a clear plan, without a greater number of allies...the more allies we have the better our chances are of better intelligence and lessens our burden of war - casualties and cost

quit trying to justify Bush's mistake by somehow tieing Iraq with WMDs and terrorism

that's why i'm voting for "anyone but Bush"


Actually it boils down to a simple principal. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I see no reason to believe that Bin Lauden and Saddam wouldn't have gotten together in the future. All you have to do is look at how Iraq has behaved over the last 12 years. There was a fight coming, regardless of who was president. My time in the military taught me that it is better to fight on our terms, not the enemies. If I were in Bush's shoes after 9/11 then I would have done the same thing.

That's just it. We are not on the inside and we don't have all the facts (apparently the intell community didn't either) and we can't make a statement saying what's he done to protect the US? I do 100% firmly believe the current P is doing all in his power to make sure we don't get another 9/11. He has got to hurt inside when one of our troops is killed. All we hear from Kerry is " I have a plan" "I have a plan". Well the best man is not running and so its between these two we see in the news just about around the clock. Geesh,one is going to win and I hope its the current P. Kerry's 20 year voting record is proof enough for me and I do not vote to my party. I vote for the guy I think is going to make the best P considering the other.

that's still not the case here...both Bush and Kerry were for the war, 1 decided that rushing it would be the better course, the other says he would have waited for a better opportunity to know the facts and prepare better for the inevitable war...you can say it's hindsight but it's obvious now Bush made the wrong decision...the entire world knows this yet some people will still disagree that how we went about it was a complete mistake...that's really what i don't understand!

and how come no one can answer why he outsourced the hunt for Bin Laden? Iraq did NOT pose an imminent threat to the US, Bin Laden did...IMO the invasion of Iraq could have waited and every ounce of the military should have gone into capturing Bin Laden :confused:

I think Bush made the best decision give the facts he had at that time although now we all see he had been mislead by some of his advisors. Yet he takes the blame. I don't think Kerry is correct by saying the President made a major mistake. Ah Kerry given the same facts might have done the same thing. We will never know that.

what exactly has he done to protect the US? he invaded and attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 nor had the capacity to build WMD's since 1992...why do some of you continue to deny this? why did Bush outsource the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghan warlords that used to work for Bin Laden?

if he had waited and let the inspectors do their jobs perhaps most the American lives and innocent Iraqi civilians could have been avoided...but he rushed it, and now what? Kerry never said he wasn't for the war, he voted for it...but what some of you fail to understand is that there was a right way and wrong way to go about it...Bush chose the wrong way, rushed it without a clear plan, without a greater number of allies...the more allies we have the better our chances are of better intelligence and lessens our burden of war - casualties and cost

quit trying to justify Bush's mistake by somehow tieing Iraq with WMDs and terrorism

that's why i'm voting for "anyone but Bush"

:thumbsup: to most of the things that you said.

I think Bush made the best decision give the facts he had at that time although now we all see he had been mislead by some of his advisors. Yet he takes the blame. I don't think Kerry is correct by saying the President made a major mistake. Ah Kerry given the same facts might have done the same thing. We will never know that.

a mistake is a mistake and this one led to too many lives that may have been avoided if taken a different, more cautious approach...what really disturbs me about Bush and his administration is how they stand by their mistake...now that all the facts are out, Iraq had no WMDs and couldn't have even produced them since almost a decade ago, no ties to terrorism nor ties to Bin Laden, Bush still says he wouldn't have changed his plan of action...that is completely absurd! if given a second chance to do it all over again Bush would make the same mistake twice? why? i think that's foolhardy

The D.C. snipings as well as the Anthrax threat count as terroist acts on american soil despite not having any direct connection or been proved to have been acts of Al Queda.


I don't like Bush.

But I will be voting republican.


ONE QUESTION: Can someone name one terrorist act on American soil since 9/11?

And if not how do you think that George Bush is not doing the job properly? And remember who was in the White House for the 8 years before Bush got there. Bush was only in the White house 9 months when the attacks occured.


John Kerry would have pussy footed around until utter kaos broke out over what we were going to do.....Kerry wants other countries to give us the okay to protect our country.....Lord knows, I don't want the Frenchies deciding when my country can defend itself....especially when they are not willing to jump in and fight with us.....


Someone please give a simple reason why they are voting for kerry that makes since ...not all this just anyone is better than bush b.s.


What happened to voting for the best candidate and not the party you belong to.

i'm voting for Allen cuz he's got balls and he's not afraid to use them!

I WAS winning until today!!

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=33491

There was an attack on the WTC prior to 9/11. This attack used a van filled w/ explosives and attempt to take down the building from its feet. It did blow up but failed to take out the WTC.

Careful, the terrorists are frightenly patient. I still believe its a matter of time but hopefully on a much smaller scale. You just cannot prevent it alltogether in this country. But I do also agree with one of the posters about hindsight. Kerry is in the great position of picking apart everything that went wrong or is percieved wrong. Very easy to do. Much harder to be the guy on top and not sway to public opinion . And public opinion is what Kerry is all about imo. We need a leader, not a guy that tries to satisfy every audience with what he thinks they want to hear. Its terribly obvious what he does but people blatantly ignore it.

you forgot the terrorist attack against our schools, our economy, our civil liberties, and our environment...by the Bush administration and a Republican controlled congress

there is your damn answer, how blind are you to reality?

have you heard of the search button? I've posted on this before, many times


ONE QUESTION: Can someone name one terrorist act on American soil since 9/11?

And if not how do you think that George Bush is not doing the job properly? And remember who was in the White House for the 8 years before Bush got there. Bush was only in the White house 9 months when the attacks occured.


John Kerry would have pussy footed around until utter kaos broke out over what we were going to do.....Kerry wants other countries to give us the okay to protect our country.....Lord knows, I don't want the Frenchies deciding when my country can defend itself....especially when they are not willing to jump in and fight with us.....


Someone please give a simple reason why they are voting for kerry that makes since ...not all this just anyone is better than bush b.s.


What happened to voting for the best candidate and not the party you belong to.

You always in a bad mood Magellan? Must be a joy to be around.

no I just like pissing you off :cool:

You always in a bad mood Magellan? Must be a joy to be around.

Ha, not even close. I find you hilarious.

good, I'm glad we can laugh about these things...I find terrorism pretty damn funny too :cool:

Ha, not even close. I find you hilarious.

Hard not to laugh at a guy who's only response to those that disagree is namecalling like a grade school kid. Pentup anger, not good for you. Go drive your car and enjoy. When Bush is reelected you need to find a way to cope and fast.

I just amazed at (and amused by) how quickly these tautological threads turn into jingoistic flame-fests.

Worse yet is the total lack of respect for logic (of the classical variety) in most of the arguments. Everyone just tries to pull the semantic wool over their would-be opponent's eyes in the most ineffectual and obvious ways. Failing that, the attacks then just fall to name-calling. It is pathetic.

Both sides spend so much ill-directed energy at trying to "expose" or derail their calumniator's supported candidate for being the harbinger of the immanent downfall of American society while the complete lack of reason in these arguments should be the real indicator of just how stupid Americans have become - and how we will be defeated by ourselves.

ONE QUESTION: Can someone name one terrorist act on American soil since 9/11?



Michael Moore with Fahrenheit 9/11

terrorism and terrorist attacks will never cease as long as we are in the eyes of others, suppressing them or their country, we will never be able to weed out the individuals, because all it takes to commit an act of terrorism is one person, with one belief.

That's what I think most people aren't grasping here, a "war on terror" is like a war on fear, the definition is so broad, it will never end, it's not linked to one country, or even a small handful, heck,some of our own citizens are terrorists. eliminating all countries that harbor them is nearly impossible, and is a sacrifce we cannot make.

Where does it all end? Who is to judge who the next "terrorist harboring country" is ? Korea? China? ...Russia? how will we confront them? With a western gung ho attitude like Bush?

If were going to do this, were going to need help, and I don't think Bush has done a good job in seeking help from others, Even Germany and Russia aren't helping us, and they've had they're own acts of terrorism, they know the consequences for terrorism, Are they're plans to flawed?

if this is such a noble cause, why is the burden mainly on our shoulders? I think the answer to that is in our not so innocent past.

"It is not known with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

- Albert Einstein

GAWD, I can't wait until these freakin elections are over.

There was an attack on the WTC prior to 9/11. This attack used a van filled w/ explosives and attempt to take down the building from its feet. It did blow up but failed to take out the WTC.

That is correct (and everyone forgets about it) it was 1992 If I am not mistaken, Clinton had just taken office and there was no action taken on the US part ( at least none that was reported or newsworthy) and for the next NINE years there was no terrorist attack on US soild (except for Oklahoma City, but that was US terrorists). So saying ther has not been any attacks since 9/11 because we went chasing Oasma, went into Iraq and captures Saddam proves NOTHING.

Name one post 9/11 terrorist attack? - Ok, how about the "Patriot Act"? Who needs terrorists when our own government is hellbent on destroying our rights?

As to why I'm voting for Kerry -- it's not because of party affiliation. I'm a registered Libertarian. As much as I hate the "lesser of 2 evils" kind of vote I am making an exception in this case because the Bush administration must be removed at all costs.

It's not about asking France for permission. It's about getting Congress (and thus, the American People) to authorize a war by presenting them with false pretenses. It was obvious to anyone in the summer of 2002 that this administration was going to manufacture a war with Iraq come hell or high water. And so now we have plenty of innocent dead on both sides, Iraq in chaos, terrorists who are even more motivated against us, and we have lost most of the support and goodwill of the world community. The Bush administration is wasting American lives for no gain, is moving the country towards totalitarianism, and is without honor.

BRx8, when you say that we outsourced the hunt for Bin Laden you seem to be simply regurgitating Kerry's misconception of the Tora Bora incident. Well guess what! nobody knew if he was there or not, it was suspected that he was but how many times did we hear that he was cornered? Trillions. If a group of people, that know the land and OBL's hiding spots better than we do, want to help, let them.

Nubo, ask General Tommy Franks about the war in Iraq and he'll let you know straight up that there was no word of Iraq spoken to anyone by the Bush administration until a month before we invaded. He's not the only one either.

As for the rest, there have been no terrorist acts since 9/11. And if you really think that the government didn't have the ability and didn't already do what the patriot act allows before it was passed you are in a fantasy world.

Vote on November 2,2004 and don't worry about the rest, we always end up with our heads above water....unless you live in New Orleans. :)

As for the rest, there have been no terrorist acts since 9/11.

tell that to the anthrax victims, the families in DC that lost loved ones to the sniper, the families of the victims of the highway serial sniper in ohio.

tell that to the anthrax victims, the families in DC that lost loved ones to the sniper, the families of the victims of the highway serial sniper in ohio.


Maybe Yellow should have been more specific. I agree that those are all horrific things however, how do we as a society classify an act of terror? Spousal abuse, drunk driver kills someone. A wife who runs over her husband for cheating? I think and I may stand corrected that yellow meant terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. To the best of my knowledge the incidents that took place with the Anthrax, DC/Ohio Sniper were all acts of violence that were not backed by an organization or establishment, am I correct?

Yes, those are terrorist acts. He didn't say Al Qaeda acts.

What difference if it is an act of terror from Al Quaeda or someone else?

Those incidents paralyzed entire communities.

Oh and ferras.. thanks for repeating what I said on the first page and actually getting a response :D

Either way, I don't see how this supports or detracts from any argument to have Bush as President.

Yes, those are terrorist acts. He didn't say Al Qaeda acts.

What difference if it is an act of terror from Al Quaeda or someone else?

Those incidents paralyzed entire communities.

Oh and ferras.. thanks for repeating what I said on the first page and actually getting a response :D

Either way, I don't see how this supports or detracts from any argument to have Bush as President.

thats what im here for ;)

edit: it really doesnt do anything for whether or not bush should be president, but they still were classified as terrorist acts, and i guess probably fell underr the jurisdiction of homeland security.

to answer the al qaeda backed terrorist thing, homeland security is charged with stopping all terrorism not just islamic extremist terrorism

Guys, the snipings are not terrorist acts, they are serial homicides. And the Anthrax was not terrorist, it was a professor that had a grudge and mailed some letters to some Congressmen. He was from Louisiana BTW, I got the full scoop on 870 am at the time, they'll tell you what others will not. There have not been any terrorist attacks since 9/11, but yes, there have been some pretty nasty deeds done. Do you think Derek Todd Lee is a terrorist? I sure hope not, even though he did kill over 20 women in the area that I used to live in.

bush is screwed, here is reality folks: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/point.spread/index.html

The D.C snipers were most CERTAINLY terrorist acts.

Anthrax most likely were too, although we will never know until someone is apprehended.

The thing that seperate terrorist acts from homicides is the act of intimidation or corersion for a specific purpose. Those acts were definitely done to intimidate the U.S. or certain communities in the U.S. for a specific, albeit maybe unknown reason.

Those were not acts done in retaliation, or for monetary gain, or for any of the reasons homicides or serial killings are normally committed.

That is correct (and everyone forgets about it) it was 1992 If I am not mistaken, Clinton had just taken office and there was no action taken on the US part ( at least none that was reported or newsworthy) and for the next NINE years there was no terrorist attack on US soild (except for Oklahoma City, but that was US terrorists). So saying ther has not been any attacks since 9/11 because we went chasing Oasma, went into Iraq and captures Saddam proves NOTHING.

I believe the people who perpetrated the attacks were arrested, tried, convicted and are in prison.

That guy may know what he is talking about but it seems to me that nothing has been proven yet. On November 3,2004 we will see if he is right or not. Neither candidate is screwed at this point, and neither of them can get any sort of push from newly registered voters either. The media claims that the new college age voters will be a push for Kerry, but there are nearly 200 more student led Republican organizations on our country's campuses than there are Democratic (1120ish to 940ish). Some would seem to believe that this would give Bush a jump with new young voters, but who really knows?

Polls are meaningless, look at the polls before the Reagan election and he was way behind. One debate was held before the election where he really kicked butt and he won by a landslide, you never know what will happen!

Guys, the snipings are not terrorist acts, they are serial homicides. And the Anthrax was not terrorist, it was a professor that had a grudge and mailed some letters to some Congressmen. He was from Louisiana BTW, I got the full scoop on 870 am at the time, they'll tell you what others will not. There have not been any terrorist attacks since 9/11, but yes, there have been some pretty nasty deeds done. Do you think Derek Todd Lee is a terrorist? I sure hope not, even though he did kill over 20 women in the area that I used to live in.


look in the DC area people were afraid to go outside their homes, sounds like they were terrified, isnt that the aim of terrrorism? weren't the perpetrators charged with terrorism as well??? yes its true no al qaeda attacks on US soil, but come on, terrorism isnt singularly linkable to islamic extremists.

Derek Todd Lee killed just as many women as the DC guys and had a whole portion of the state of Louisiana looking over their shoulders and women were scared to death to answer their doors, yet he is not a terrorist just as the DC guys aren't. They are labelled that way because they are Muslim and at the time that was supposedly synonemous with the threat. The anthrax guy got off without a conviction too, it's a shame but it's true.

Nubo, ask General Tommy Franks about the war in Iraq and he'll let you know straight up that there was no word of Iraq spoken to anyone by the Bush administration until a month before we invaded. He's not the only one either.

I'm not sure what your point is. I stated that the administration was determined to go to war with Iraq and it was plain to see. I didn't say the military was officially notified, but General Franks can watch CNN as easily as we can. The military doesn't vote on war authorizations, that's up to Congress. The administration played Hussein, US opinion, and Congress in order to get the war they wanted. That's when Tommy got the call -- his is not to reason why. They also tried to play the UN and the international community, but failed there.

And if you really think that the government didn't have the ability and didn't already do what the patriot act allows before it was passed you are in a fantasy world.

Then why pass it? Because there is a difference between doing these things in a carefully considered way in certain situations and having a law that gives them sanction to do so, and more, on a much larger scale without having to think about propriety and consequences.

The Patriot Act was passed so that people could at least finally know that they were being watched and listened to.

Franks was in a majority of the meetings leading up to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, he's also as brutally honest as it gets, and he has stated numerous times that people that claim that Bush and his admin were hell bent on invading Iraq are idiots. He was all over the white house and got nearly all the briefings, he knows how things went on behind closed doors.

Guys, the snipings are not terrorist acts, they are serial homicides. And the Anthrax was not terrorist, it was a professor that had a grudge and mailed some letters to some Congressmen. He was from Louisiana BTW, I got the full scoop on 870 am at the time, they'll tell you what others will not. There have not been any terrorist attacks since 9/11, but yes, there have been some pretty nasty deeds done. Do you think Derek Todd Lee is a terrorist? I sure hope not, even though he did kill over 20 women in the area that I used to live in.Are you kidding me? What, did you think that prior to 2003 your charges had to specifically ID the word "terrorist" in order for it to be considered an act of terrorism? By your rationale, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi is guilty only of Conspiracy to Destroy a Civil Aircraft of the United States; Conspiracy to Destroy a Vehicle Used in Foreign Commerce by Means of an Explosive; Destroying a Civil Aircraft; Destroying a Vehicle Used in Foreign Commerce by Means of an Explosive; Killing Nationals of the United States; Aiding and Abetting; and is not a terrorist.

Someone please give a simple reason why they are voting for kerry that makes since ...not all this just anyone is better than bush b.s.Okay, well first let me say that I am registered as an independent, because I vote according to my own reason not that of a particular party. However, in the last three elections I happened to vote for the republican candidate. I've been a fierce defender of Bush and his decisions regarding Iraq. I read the same stuff (albeit probably in more detail) that he read, and I believed it was the right thing to do. I guess we were wrong - INTEL is funny like that...anyway. This year I am voting for Kerry for a couple of reasons, but I'll tell the number one reason:
No other leader in the world (except Tony Blair, and he has problems of his own) is willing to work with Bush. How can we have a president leading us into an isolated existence? We live in a global political economy (and that's a good thing), and we simply cannot bear 4 years of totally doing our own thing. Like his policies or hate them, we are incapable of functioning symbiotically with other countries. That is a bad thing. That one reason alone made me lean more towards Kerry. The last debate cinched it completely. Sorry, Bush.

That one reason alone made me lean more towards Kerry. The last debate cinched it completely. Sorry, Bush.
Hah. If I could, I'd give you and Claude 1,000 votes each. WTF, your votes are meaningless in Texas. Yay, electoral college. :D

B-Nez, the DC guys are considered terrorist and the other serial killers are not because of what reason? There is none except for the fact that they are of the Muslim religion and because of the paranoia of the times that the shootings occurred, everyone was looking to bag a terrorist and these guys were the first ones to come close to anything resembling a terrorist at the time. Don't play that stupid game you are trying to play. If the DC guys are terrorist then every serial murderer that ever lived must be considered one, period. If that is not the case then I am correct.

Also, the world leaders that have not backed Bush have stated that they will not back Kerry either, who's left?

I consider the DC snipers terrorists, but of a different nature. Yes they were trying to terrorize the nation (or at least the area). But their motives were greed, not any politicoreligious statement. They were trying to extort money. Dumbasses....I hope their deaths are painful.

B-Nez I respect your opinion but I have to disagree, there are many other countries that are still working with us, can you cite any examples of how other countries not working with us and how it has affected jobs in the U.S and abroad? dont give me the War bullcrap, because that is all deficit and it is a proven fact that more jobs are created by War, unfortunately that is the case. We are shipping more jobs oversea than at any other time in our history, is this good, is it bad, only time will tell, there are a lot of different theories on this one. As for the aspect of working with other nations, thats just hysterical each nation is going to cover their own ass first look at Russia, France and Germany, why in the hell would they want to attack Iraq, when they had just signed multi-million dollar deals for oil and contract work from Saddam to put in new infrastructure etc, this meant big dollars for there country, why would they help us, there was a significant loss at stake for them? In turn if anyone thinks that the UN is a legitimate means for working with other nations your being decieved. The UN is a worthless body that has no backbone that we as a country pay the lion share of there bills. I suppose you might believe that we should join the world court? Sorry for the rant I am just completely against the UN and firmly believe that we have to cover our own butts first. If that means taking out Saddam(Done), the leadership in Iran and Kim Jung whatever from North Korea Im all for it so that my kids can grow up without having to worry about further attacks from Rogue idiots like Osama Bin Laden and radical leaders in foreign nations.

I believe the people who perpetrated the attacks were arrested, tried, convicted and are in prison.

Yes, they were. And pretty quickly, too. Clinton got his terrorists - caught, tried, convicted, jailed. Bin Laden's still at large.

Hah. If I could, I'd give you and Claude 1,000 votes each. WTF, your votes are meaningless in Texas. Yay, electoral college. :D

I spent some time in Pensacola, Florida over the summer - going door to door, registering people to vote, stumping for the Dems. My vote may be meaningless in Texas (sad, but true), but my efforts in Florida could more than offset your puny little vote, in a state that could make a difference.

Yes, they were. And pretty quickly, too. Clinton got his terrorists - caught, tried, convicted, jailed. Bin Laden's still at large.

See Claud I knew someday you would finally admit that Clinton screwed up and let Bin Laden go, see we actually had a chance before this administration sent him cave hopping.

I knew you would come around. :)

See Claud I knew someday you would finally admit that Clinton screwed up and let Bin Laden go, see we actually had a chance before this administration sent him cave hopping.

I knew you would come around. :)

As usual, Silver, your logic escapes me.

All i wanted from bush was an apology. He went on TV and begged the US public to support his side on Iraq. We did (mostly); he attacked, without a declaration of war by congress (which means it's Bush's war not ours); he was wrong. All I want is for him to admit it was a bad decision. No deflecting the issue. He went to war saying there was an emminant threat of WMD proliferation/trasportation in Iraq. There was none (released to the public at least). The CIA/NSA/FBI all point fingers at someone else. Fact is, Bush is the man on top, he has the launch codes, he has the final say. He was wrong. It's like a 2 year old who won't admit he spilled the milk. Is it so hard that a man claiming so much faith in religion and morality to admit he messed up.

I understand that (almost) all politicians are baby hugging, candy stealing weasels sometime or another. But this is about more than Bush "standing by his principles." If the scientific community was full of people unwilling to admit they were wrong, when proved wrong, there would be no invention, innovation, progression. I bet if Bush apologized in a way that didn't not show his position as a weak one, he would win the election by a landslide and gain some report with the rest of the world. The days of imperialism are long...long over. Burdening up to 90% of the war effort (financially not so much, but how can you put a price on the lives of our dead soldiers) and claiming Breat Britain and Poland are our biggest allies is a joke. Great Britian would follow us into the gate of hell. How on Earth can your backup country be Poland. I have nothing but respect for poles, swiss, dutch, and the rest of the Netherlands, but I'm not sure I want them backing me up when the bullets fly. With approx. 190 countries in the world, when we say a country like Iraq needs to be taken down due to our intelligence and not due to an attack on our soil/soldiers, we need to have more than a 3 country alliance (i don't want to hear about a "coalition of the willing." That is the way of countries wanting to be on our side,without being on our side).

One last note. Being a student of science, technology, and free ideas, I'm not so sure I want a president who will base the life or death of our soldier by "talking to god." I want an analytical mind who makes his decisions based on fact and not on faith. Too many wars are fought on behalf of "God." In fact, almost all of them. (number 2: imperialism, number 3: freedom). I'm also not sure i want a president who beleives the use of scientific research like stem cell research (without destroying embriotic life), should be banned. It is possible to be moral without being a zealot. Knowing the difference between harvesting womens' embryos for research, and placental post-birth research does not require any advice from "God." That being said, sorry Bush; you lost one you never really had. Perhaps the greatest attack on America to date is the Patriot Act. No peice of legislation requires the powers he(and congressional members that sign things they don't read) granted. Thankfully, part of it was repealed. I hate how ALL policy is written in blood.

he attacked, without a declaration of war by congress (which means it's Bush's war not ours);


Wow what a bunch of thoughts, Im glad you shared however I had one that I disagreed with. There were a lot of Wars including one from a recent popular Democratic President that did not have a declaration as well many other significant wars, Vietnam and Korea come to mind. Here is a list of all the so called Wars in our History that have not had a declaration.

The Florida Seminole Wars 1817 - 1858
The American Civil War 1861 - 1865 (against the Confederate States of America)
The Mexican border Punitive Expedition 1917 - 1921
The Korean War 1950 - 1953 (against North Korea)
The Vietnam War 1964 - 1972 (against North Vietnam)
The First Gulf War 1991 (against Iraq)
The War on Drugs 1980s-Present
The Kosovo War (against Yugoslavia)
The War on Terror 2001-Present
Operation Enduring Freedom (against Afghanistan) 2001
The Second Gulf War (against Iraq) 2003

The fact is that stem cell research can be done without the harvesting of embryos, that is what would be deemed acceptable.

Hah. If I could, I'd give you and Claude 1,000 votes each. WTF, your votes are meaningless in Texas. Yay, electoral college. :DWell, then it's a good thing I have an absentee ballot to vote in Florida - no WAY you'll convince me Floridian votes are meaningless after the last election!

The votes here in the Panhandle will be a vast majority Bush. The peninsula will be majority Kerry with a good portion for Nader also. There is still a problem with the votes in Florida, many people are registered in two states at the same time, mainly New York and Florida, which will give Kerry illegal votes. I can smell the Supreme Court warming up the seats for another ballot box debachle!

If I were in Bush's shoes after 9/11 then I would have done the same thing.

What's that? Done what?

Invade an innocent country and then lie about the reason for the invasion? And then stay the course of action that you know is wrong? And then tell the American public that it was the right thing to do because of..... yada,yada,yada....

If Americans are killing innocent Iraqis, and telling the public that it is acceptable collateral damage, are Americans not perpetrating acts of terrorism as well? Just a thought.

I personally believe that if you are caught voting in two states you should be shunned and sent to France?

B-Nez, the DC guys are considered terrorist and the other serial killers are not because of what reason? There is none except for the fact that they are of the Muslim religion and because of the paranoia of the times that the shootings occurred, everyone was looking to bag a terrorist and these guys were the first ones to come close to anything resembling a terrorist at the time. Don't play that stupid game you are trying to play. If the DC guys are terrorist then every serial murderer that ever lived must be considered one, period. If that is not the case then I am correct.

Also, the world leaders that have not backed Bush have stated that they will not back Kerry either, who's left?Actually, I had all but completely forgotten that those cats claimed to be muslims, so you are barking up the wrong tree there. And you;ve keyed in on one of the key problems that has plagued the terrorism debate for longer than you or I have been around: how to define it. As for serial killers - they come in many flavors, but most of the ones I have read about have some very ritualistic methods: taking trophies, mutiliating the bodies, having sex with the bodies - revelling in the brutality, in essence. Some sick desire drove them to do these things. Now, Malvo and his buddy didn't do any of that. They simply enjoyed creating the wifespread fear and terror by sniping people and evading. They wanted to terrorize the region, and they were successful. You can definitely argue that terrorism is difficult to define "according to Hoyle," but you'll have a more difficult time convincing me that this was just another run of the mill serial killer.

Yes, those are terrorist acts. He didn't say Al Qaeda acts.

What difference if it is an act of terror from Al Quaeda or someone else?

Those incidents paralyzed entire communities.

Oh and ferras.. thanks for repeating what I said on the first page and actually getting a response :D

Either way, I don't see how this supports or detracts from any argument to have Bush as President.


Maybe Bush along with his cohorts Rummy and that guy from Halliburton should go and invade those communities from where the snipers hailed as well. Bomb those terrorists..... Oh yeah, they had no WMD. But then again, that didn't stop them last time.......

Wow what a bunch of thoughts, Im glad you shared however I had one that I disagreed with. There were a lot of Wars including one from a recent popular Democratic President that did not have a declaration as well many other significant wars, Vietnam and Korea come to mind. Here is a list of all the so called Wars in our History that have not had a declaration.

The Florida Seminole Wars 1817 - 1858
The American Civil War 1861 - 1865 (against the Confederate States of America)
The Mexican border Punitive Expedition 1917 - 1921
The Korean War 1950 - 1953 (against North Korea)
The Vietnam War 1964 - 1972 (against North Vietnam)
The First Gulf War 1991 (against Iraq)
The War on Drugs 1980s-Present
The Kosovo War (against Yugoslavia)
The War on Terror 2001-Present
Operation Enduring Freedom (against Afghanistan) 2001
The Second Gulf War (against Iraq) 2003

Very true. Funny how this list is a horrible representation of our foreign policy. However, some of these wouldn't really be "wars" by the political definition. The civil war did not involve another country. When's it's us vs. us, it's a different idea. We all know how Korea and Vietnam ended up, with a bitter taste. The war on terror is not a war. It's an initiative. A war has to be declared with at least two sides. Since terror is not a country, nationality, group, etc, it can't be a "war." The same goes for the war on drugs, who are we at war with? It's funny how the globally justified wars are the ones which congress declares war (WW's).

As for the aspect of working with other nations, thats just hysterical each nation is going to cover their own ass first look at Russia, France and Germany, why in the hell would they want to attack Iraq, when they had just signed multi-million dollar deals for oil and contract work from Saddam to put in new infrastructure etc, this meant big dollars for there country, why would they help us, there was a significant loss at stake for them? In turn if anyone thinks that the UN is a legitimate means for working with other nations your being decieved. The UN is a worthless body that has no backbone that we as a country pay the lion share of there bills. I suppose you might believe that we should join the world court? Sorry for the rant I am just completely against the UN and firmly believe that we have to cover our own butts first. If that means taking out Saddam(Done), the leadership in Iran and Kim Jung whatever from North Korea Im all for it so that my kids can grow up without having to worry about further attacks from Rogue idiots like Osama Bin Laden and radical leaders in foreign nations.You're preaching to the choir about Russia, France, and Germany. You couldn't possibly know that the last 11 years of my life had been spent preparing for war with Iraq - gladly so. So, I'm well aware of the self-serving politics of those three countries. Maybe you missed the part where I said I've been a defender of Bush, and that going to war in Iraq seemed like the right answer to me, too. Not that I think we should not have - it is just very plain that our planners exert 80% (arbitrary) of their efforts planning for the takedown, and 20% on what to do after that. For my own part, I spent 11 years preparing to takedown and 0 time contemplating what to do after that. Hey, you reap what you sow, because all that time, and now it's all down the toilet. I spent 11 years focusing on an operation that took 3 months to be over with. Oh well, I've got a few more years left to learn some new tricks. :D
As for the world court...everytime I go to a foreign country I am reminded that I am subject to their laws, and can be prosecuted under their judicial system. Being an American citizen gets you no special rights in another country. Remember Michael what's-his-face? The stupid American kid that got caned for spray-painting cars in Thailand or something? He got what he deserved. He broke the law, and was punished according to the law (see comment below). If someone - anyone, American or not - commits war crimes, then absolutely they should be tried and punished for those crimes. How about the Nazi prison guards who have been tried by the UN War Crimes court in the Hague? Do you think trying them in an international court is inappropriate? How about Slobodan Milosevic?

Yes, the UN needs a lot of work in the political side of the house. It could be much better and much more effective - it's a start I suppose. If it weren't for their wonderful humanitarian missions, they probably wouldn't still be around.

Edit: I wanted to clarify my point about Thailand, because it may not have been clear. One of the points that I have seen argued against the ICC is "giving up sovereignty" over our citizens. The point I was making is that when our citzens are abroad, we have already given up that sovereignty where it concerns criminal acts.

The French have been butt-fucked for so long, they kind of prefer it. I don't think we should ask them DICK. All they could teach us is how to bend over.

Edit: I wanted to clarify my point about Thailand, because it may not have been clear. One of the points that I have seen argued against the ICC is "giving up sovereignty" over our citizens. The point I was making is that when our citzens are abroad, we have already given up that sovereignty where it concerns criminal acts.

My point about the World Court was simply directed at the ideology that many of the Wingnuts on this forum and in our country as well Kofi Anaan said himself that the War in Iraq was illegal. So if we bought into the World Court, would Bush then be held accountable for War Crimes? Could our future leaders be put in that position because they do not agree with the rest of the world? The UN is a joke, sure they send people to do humanitarian efforts, however we foot the majority of that bill, why not just employ Americans and use our own money to help other nations. Sorry to rant the UN to me is a total waste.

Of course when you go to another country you are subject to there laws, probably would not recommend stealing, you might get your hand cut off.

Well, then it's a good thing I have an absentee ballot to vote in Florida - no WAY you'll convince me Floridian votes are meaningless after the last election!
:( OK, you don't get 1000 votes in Florida (I hope). I'm really not that worried about Bush carrying Florida. The Northeast is where the action is this election.

I still find it rather naive to think that Kerry would just sit there on his ass while terrorists kill US citizens. You really think that Bush is the ONLY guy on this planet that would fight terrorists?

The difference is this, one guy went ahead and charged at the terrorists.. now there are more of them in Iraq.

The other guy says he would ask for the help of other nations in this effort to rebuild what is already broken.

The big thing today was Kerry's statement that Terrorism can't be won... well guess what, I agree. You can't win Terrorism!!! You can reduce the effect, and mitigate the numbers.. but to say you are going to WIN and completely destroy terrorism for all of eternity, is like saying you will rid the world of Evil. Which Bush has already stated that it's his Christian duty to rid the land of Evil Terrorists people (Or what you would like to say Muslim Fanatics).

Bush has already stated that it's his Christian duty to rid the land of Evil Terrorists people (Or what you would like to say Muslim Fanatics).He never said that. Quit spreading BS propaganda.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/bush.faith/

He has said he is trying to rid the land of Evil Terrorists.. Christian Duty. (Not the Bracket part, but come on, you know who he's trying to suggest here.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/bush.faith/

He has said he is trying to rid the land of Evil Terrorists.. Christian Duty. (Not the Bracket part, but come on, you know who he's trying to suggest here.)
He still never said what you said he did, and nothing in your link suggested that he did. Bush makes less religious references than Clinton did, I had a link way back in the "In the News" thread that quantified the references. There will be no president that denies the importance of religion in our lifetimes, so get over it.

Outlaws, we know the rest of the world would not have supported Kerry to go into Iraq. We also know that many of the terrorist leaders were staying in Iraq at the time we invaded Afghanistan. That means that we would have been stuck in Afghanistan watching and waiting for the remaining terrorist to cross the border to get into Iraq, and that's not a very effective strategy if your goal is to stop as many of the "bad guys" as possible. The worlwide situation would be much worse had we not gone into Iraq after the Afghanistan invasion becuase the terrorist would have had a better chance of getting to WMD's or have the ability to create it. We now know that there weren't any WMD's present when we got in there, we do not know if they were shipped out of the country like we later found had been done in at least a small capacity, but we do know that they had the ability to create new stuff. This is the reason that I think Kerry is not a tough leader against the terrorist, because he will let the rest of the world make his decisions and those decisions can very adversely affect us. Does he want to get the terrorist, Yes I am sure he does. Does he have the spine to do something about the UN's blatent hatred of the US and go get the terrorist, No he does not.

hmm.......i'm not sure where some of you get your ideas/ideals...but i guess having such a diverse look at things with such varying opinions is what makes this country great and makes me happy i am an american. But do not tell me or write that there is no war on terror b/c terrorism is not a country or a people.....i have seen to many dead bodies to many people killed..and have had my unfortunate hand in it. War can be declared on a lot of things....land...people...ideals...beliefs. Unfortunatly in war no matter how just...someone always losses....and normaly it's both sides. Too bad the time when we find out if we were right or wrong will be years down the road and history will be written about it when i am old and grey. But i know i did the right thing. Of all the thousands i've seen killed i've seen millions cheer in the streets for the freedom they were awarded for all their years of hardship.

As for politics...it's just a simple choice of which one is most likly not to be a total moron. hahaha I fo rone haven't picked my lesser of two evils yet ;)

just my two cents. have fun with the endless debate :D

Thanks for your sevice and for the work that you have done to keep my butt safe here in my desk chair.

This is the reason that I think Kerry is not a tough leader against the terrorist, because he will let the rest of the world make his decisions and those decisions can very adversely affect us. Does he want to get the terrorist, Yes I am sure he does. Does he have the spine to do something about the UN's blatent hatred of the US and go get the terrorist, No he does not.Ahh, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Look at how we got those assclowns in Yemen. You don't have to drag 15K troops around to hunt down and kill terrorists. A small team or two can do it much more quietly, and without an apparent US role. Money works, too. Bribe some other poor schmuck to do it. You gotta miss the good old days...It just works so much better when you go sneaking around behind everybody's backs. :D

Nez, when we used the Afghan rebels to help us try and track down OBL we got hammered by the Liberals in Congress and Kerry is trying to bring it up now like we let him slip through our hands because we let someone else go after him. People don't like the idea of us being in those countries and fighting, but they don't like the idea of us using someone else to do the work for us either. I think we are doing well, not great, and we will see the rewards for our actions in the near future(next 10-15 years especially).