if Kerry is elected for the President, Osama Bin Laden will attack the US.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Liebling:-))) said:
Ha Ha Ha

Please don´t believe what email saying...

I know from that experience... It´s an exactly same here in Germany, too..

Please don´t listen any emails...

I only beleive is: News on the TV or policies newspaper (not false newspapers).

Excuse me, I´m not interesting about policies because they are nothing but BIG MOUTH. It´s same with us here in Germany....

I do is ***nodding***, that period!!!
Click to expand...

If you were in the US Who would u vote for? Honestly and Why?
 
Cheri said:
If you were in the US Who would u vote for? Honestly and Why?
Click to expand...

Beleive me, I vote none of polities for 20 years... :o
 
Reba said:
A teacher actually used that kind of language? :eek: What kind of school was that?
Click to expand...
Hey, it's college! We're all grown-ups! Plus, I was just speaking figuratively... I'm not sure if the teacher actually used that word though. Heh!
 
Reba said:
What exactly is the lie that you think Bush said?
Bush doesn't have the world fighting; the terrorists have the world fighting. Do you want to sit home and wait for the terrorists to knock on your door? Not me. That is why I vote for Bush.
Click to expand...


I agree....Kerry won't stand up to the terriorists. He doesn't think terriorism is a threat....but remember 9/11?? We didn't start that....the terriorists did! Obviously the terriorists wanted Kerry to be President so they can bomb us because Kerry wants to handle them with "kid gloves"....while Bush isn't afraid to stand up to the terriorists.
I don't want a 'weak" president who won't stand up for America and those terrorists.
 
I don't want a 'weak" president who won't stand up for America and those terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Me either. I do not want a weak Prez who stands up for terrorists.
That is why I am voting for Kerry, he will stand up AGAINST the terrorists.
Bush admitted he is not concerned about Osama Bin Laden.
He is just concerned about oil profits for his rich buddies.
 
Nancy said:
I agree....Kerry won't stand up to the terriorists. He doesn't think terriorism is a threat....but remember 9/11?? We didn't start that....the terriorists did! Obviously the terriorists wanted Kerry to be President so they can bomb us because Kerry wants to handle them with "kid gloves"....while Bush isn't afraid to stand up to the terriorists.
I don't want a 'weak" president who won't stand up for America and those terrorists.
Click to expand...


just remember the Terriorists were trained in american,flied our planes that a attacked on america...Did Bush stopped that? Hell no he did not! We are not free from terriorists not yet because, we have not found anything that would link to 9/11. I don't want another world war to prove how tough we are! Bush can't stop terrorism and he knows that. It's disgusting that we were attacked because of our values, such as being a free and democratic country. What USA is doing in Afghanistna is an act of terrorism, Why? because people are getting killed our american soliders, Children who lives in Afghanistna it doesn't have to be this way. From this day on we as a nation will never again be safe. Bush would not keep us safe either I bet you on it.
 
Cheri said:
It's disgusting that we were attacked because of our values, such as being a free and democratic country.
Click to expand...
The terrorists attacked us because they hate Christians and Jews, and they will continue to try to kill us unless we stop them first.

What USA is doing in Afghanistna is an act of terrorism, Why? because people are getting killed our american soliders, Children who lives in Afghanistna it doesn't have to be this way.
Click to expand...
The people in Afghanistan are grateful that they are free of the Taliban. They just held their first election. How can you say Americans are committing terrorism there? Our soldiers do not intentionally terrorize or kill innocent people. That is disgusting if you compare our American troops with terrorists. Our soldiers also build their schools, repair their utilities, provide water and food, play with the kids, and show respect to other people's religions. Do terrorists do that? No!

Bush would not keep us safe either I bet you on it.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what Kerry plans to do that would keep us safer. What is his plan that is different?
 
Beowulf said:
That is why I am voting for Kerry, he will stand up AGAINST the terrorists.
Click to expand...
Please explain how Kerry plans to stand up against terrorists.
 
The terrorists attacked us because they hate Christians and Jews, and they will continue to try to kill us unless we stop them first.
Click to expand...

Not only that, they are jealous of our freedom too, such as our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

The people in Afghanistan are grateful that they are free of the Taliban. They just held their first election. How can you say Americans are committing terrorism there? Our soldiers do not intentionally terrorize or kill innocent people. That is disgusting if you compare our American troops with terrorists. Our soldiers also build their schools, repair their utilities, provide water and food, play with the kids, and show respect to other people's religions. Do terrorists do that? No!
Click to expand...


You misunderstood me I did not compare our soliders as terrorize.. I said our soliders got killed, Children got killed. and Who wanted this war? Not me not the soliders its Bush.


Please tell me what Kerry plans to do that would keep us safer. What is his plan that is different?
Click to expand...

Did I ever said we are safe? Read my post again.
 
I go with Reba as well. It's important to protect our country (USA).
 
reply

If you support the Iraq war then why don't you join as solider? You will understand if you are a solider in the Iraqwar. I know deaf people can be given a job, which deaf people can do, from U.S. military.
:D
 
AOFrozenCity said:
If you support the Iraq war then why don't you join as solider? You will understand if you are a solider in the Iraqwar. I know deaf people can be given a job, which deaf people can do, from U.S. military.
:D
Click to expand...
Deaf people can work Civil Service for the military but they can't join as soldiers.
 
I believe that in the future...that there would be a possibty for deaf people to join as soliders...

long live america! :D
 
Reba said:
Please explain how Kerry plans to stand up against terrorists.
Click to expand...

Certainly....
FAR better than Bush is doing.
After all, Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and is no stranger to danger, while Bush wimped out.
:)
 
Last edited:
Bush, Kerry Agree: No End to Terrorism
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1018-22.htm

"The elite, Republican and Democrat alike, know that the terrorism can never be eliminated. They want to take us back to the cold war era, with its policy of endless containment. Neither side will admit it, though, because they fear it would cost them votes. So they have joined together in a solemn conspiracy of silence.

Occasionally the truth does leak out. A recent article in the New York Times Magazine quoted Kerry: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Kerry likens terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling. We'll never end it. We can only try to reduce it and keep it contained, so that "it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

The Bush campaign jumped on this like duck on a junebug. Kerry doesn't want to win the war on terrorism, the Bushies screamed. The Kerry campaign shot right back, quoting W. himself. Just a few weeks ago, the president said that "you can't win" the war on terror. "You can only hope to make it "less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time." How long a period of time? "I can't tell you," Bush confessed. "I don't have any . definite end."
Click to expand...
more..... You can click on the link to see more details.

Bush, Cheney Mislead on Iraq
http://progressivetrail.org/articles/041007Cole.shtml
Bush, Cheney Mislead on Iraq, Zarqawi

First, the CIA comes out and says it can't find any convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi's presence at certain points in Iraq has long been argued as a proof of his links to terrorism and al-Qaeda (even though Zarqawi's Monotheism and Jihad is a bitter rival of al-Qaeda rather than part of it). It was always argued by the Right in the US that Iraq was a tightly controlled totalitarian state and that Zarqawi couldn't have slipped in and out unnoticed. But this was always a silly argument. Saddam's state was ramshackle, and Badr Corps fighters slipped in an out of Iraq all the time (they are supposedly on our side; has the administration bothered to debrief them?) The Zarqawi story was so important as a casus belli that the Bush administration even deliberately avoided attacking the small Ansar al-Islam base in northern Iraq when it had the chance before the war.

Now the Iraq Survey Group report finds no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or weapons programs in Iraq since the mid-1990s. True, he was having a tiny amount of rat poison made to drop into the drinks of his enemies. The most menacing they can paint Saddam is that he would kind of have liked to, you know, have some weapons of mass destruction, sometime in the future. This is not a threat, it is a daydream. So why in the world did Saddam not just announce the fact to avoid being invaded by the US?

Well, of course, he did announce the fact, in the materials submitted to the UN in fall of 2002. But the paperwork did not explain how exactly all the chemical weapons were destroyed, and actually fueled the Bush administration attack rather than forestalling it.

The Guardian reports an Iraq Survey Group Report that is based in part on interviews with Saddam after he was captured. They reveal that Saddam feared using chemical weapons against Coalition troops in 1990-1991 because he was convinced that this move would cost him the support of all his backers. He said, "Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought about us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us."

Of course, he may have been lying about his motives. The US had threatened him with regime change if he used those weapons, whereas he knew he might well survive if his forces were just tossed out of Kuwait. Also, he had to be at least a little afraid of US retaliation, and it actually does have nuclear and biological weapons.

The main reason for which he would not provide proof of the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, he told the group, was that he was worried about Iran. Apparently he never got over the trauma of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, when he came close to being defeated by his much bigger neighbor. (Only the Reagan Adminsitration alliance of convenience with him saved him). And, of course, his anxiety about Iran was in part a code for fear of a Shiite uprising.

Saddam was fighting several Shiite revolutions, being mounted by the Sadrists, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the al-Da`wa Party, and the Marsh Arab Hizbullah. He was barely able to keep a lid on them, using secret police and brutal repression. They were being backed by Iran (or at least all but the Sadrists were), and he was admitting that he feared that if the Iranians and the Iraqi Shiites thought he would not be able to gas them, he might be open to another invasion or a popular Shiite uprising. The group report says Saddam used chemical weapons on the Shiites to put down the rebellion of spring, 1991. (What it does not say is that the United States, which was in a position to stop this use of WMD on civilians, as well as the use of conventional weapons to massacre thousands, declined to so much as fire a missile at a helicopter gunship).

Ironically, the Sadrists and Marsh Arabs have gone on to pose a dire threat to order in post-Saddam Iraq, and the US has also treated them harshly as a result.

Saddam also was appears to have been convinced that the US would not attack his regime after September 11, because of its secular character. Saddam is often caricatured as a madman (and it is true that there is something wrong with the man), but in this remark he shows himself thinking rationally and expecing Bush to do the same.
Click to expand...
 
Kerry Vs. Bush In Fighting Terror

Kerry has a better chance of expanding the coalition to include other countries where BUSH HAS FAILED in foreign diplomacy (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out). Kerry is certainly more liked and favored abroad (watch world news).

We need a President who can lead the American people and rally other nations, not mislead (NO WMD's, NO LINK TO 9/11). We need a President who welcomes an expanded coalition to rebuild Iraq not hord and profit by dishing out rebuilding contracts to Halliburton (Cheney/Bush stock holders) and slam the door on other countries.

WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO CAN THINK AND SPEAK INTELLEGENTLY AND THAT'S KERRY not Carl Rove as Bush's ventrilliquist and calling the shots.

Did you even watch the debates?
"Freedom's on the March?" Does this justify preemptive strikes by putting a noble label on it? I guess it's a way of selling the idea to us Americans since we value "freedom". Whatever sells here doesn't necessarily go over well in other parts of the world. Ahhh! and guess who's marching?...Our troops, alone!

"Preemptive strikes" (Bush strategy) There are more than 60 countries worldwide that harbor terrorists. There may even be some in your backyard (sleeper cells). We can't preemptiively strike 60 nations that are known to harbor terrorists. That's lunacy!

Simply stated, it's going to take "brain-power" and "people skills" (It doesn't hurt to speak foreign languages fluently either...which Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry are adept. During JFK's tenure as President, his wife Jackie won the hearts of the French with her fluency in the language).

A smarter war would have been Kerry's plan, let the U.N. Inspectors complete there job before invading Iraq.

If we are to fight terrorism, we can't do it alone, it must be a global effort. A SMARTER WAR ON FIGHTING TERRORISM that's Kerry's plan!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top