Speakeasy forum: Terrorism

which is why some of our 'enemy' countries want Kerry....it's easier to swallow mush than a scud missle.

TONI

Hi, Clay.

Bush has already shown he can't do a good job against terrorism, by getting sucked (or rather, insisting on going) into Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan (which is quietly going backwards fast ), then moved on to Somalia and Yemen, as Tommy Franks told Sen. Graham. Meanwhile, little has been done about securing American petrochemical plants, which could easily be used to mount poison gas attacks on major cities (notably NYC, Houston, New Orleans, and LA -- remember Bhopal?) or to decrease vulnerability to biological, chemical, or even nuclear weapons in containers arriving at our ports. A strong Kerry vote from me.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I wouldn't say that, Jonah. Yes, a minority, but prime motivation being a belief that all citizens are not equal, there are "classes". Needless to say, he thinks himself to be a member of the "superior" class who are more able to lead.

Not from that one single post, as you well know, Josh. One's past history of action comes into play. I know it might support your political view in this case, but you can't expect the Forum members to treat every post as an independent "stand alone" post and not consider the past posts of the author.

As an example, Josh, the use of the "rich". An undefined term when used, but creates the image of a special "class" of people. Then you can atttempt to play the "rich" vs. the not "rich". Class warfare.
The "game" can use other ways to attempt to divide the people into "classes" - education, state of residence, ethnicity, etc. etc., the bottom line is to attempt to divide the people into "classes" and try to get groups of them to be against the targeted "class" for political purposes. The "label game", attempting to slap a derogatory label onto the "target" is a common tactic, slap on the label as an attempt to put the target into a negative "class".

Well, you still think the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. Newsflash! The Iraq war is about deposing a bloodthirsty dictator that murders his own people and defies the U.N. resolutions against him. It is NOT part of the war on terror.

I guess we can assume that your support for Kerry also means that you too support a "more sensitive" war on terror since that is Kerry's position. Would that be an ongoing "offensive" or would it be reactive policies? Just what is a "more sensitive" war? Does it consider using things like profiling that Bush should have implemented long ago?

Can we deduce from your post that you also support an offensive in Somalia and Yemen? You disagreed with the first strike policy in Iraq, have you changed your position? Do you also support the military growth required for this? So far your candidate has not supported the military. Is he now willing to sign legislation that he would not even vote for in
the past?

Your candidate says we must strengthen our intellience capabilities to continue the war on terror. Why should we believe he will actually do anything about intelligence when he couldn't even show up for half of the Intelligence Committee meetings as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Is he suddenly going to be a different John Kerry than the one he has been so far?

The ball's in your court. Don't tell us why you think Bush has failed, tell us how you think Kerry is going to do better. That was the original question just in case you didn't notice.

Afghanistan would have been a good first step if bush hadn't stubbed his toe.

Dan