Bush or Kerry

[chinard]

Terry,

The man asks a valid question. Before you have your "last word", perhaps you'd like to answer it? Regardless of your stance on Bush, how do all of you suggest that the US address it's terrorist problem, regardless of who's president? If your response has anything to do with Bush whatsoever, I'll then know that your not interested in anything but furthering your anti-Bush agenda and could care less about the big picture--stopping terrorism.

I hate to say it, but you will never stop terrorisim and the U.S. cannot police the world.
There is an organization that is TRYING to do that (the UN), but guess what? Bush already went against their decision when he decided to go vigilante against iraq!

Maybe he should be working to make the U.N. stronger in its ability to deal with these issues, instead of undermining them with his own agenda.

And dont give me this crap that clinton (or whoever) would have done nothing. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to point to afghanistan and say "destroy that"

[Odinmoon]

One way to handle these animals is to attack the right people. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. By all means go after Osama. You won't find him or wepons of mass desruction in Iraq. Beating up Iraq won't get Osama. And is a great waste of resorce. Also take advice from the UN. Thats what its For.

That was my answer. Listen to the UN. And thats for any president. Also step down the addiction for oil. Its going to run out one day. and then what will you be fighting for.

regards Terry

[cnegrad]

There is an organization that is TRYING to do that (the UN), but guess what? Bush already went against their decision when he decided to go vigilante against iraq!

The UN does nothing but talk, and never took action after over a dozen "sanctions". What good are threats and rules that aren't enforced? Any parent knows that. The UN is clueless.

And dont give me this crap that clinton (or whoever) would have done nothing. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to point to afghanistan and say "destroy that"

Clinton? Clinton (between oral favors) bombed an aspirin factory (killing a civilian) and passed on bin Ladin when he had the chance. He also dismantled a large portion of our military. If we're going to have a productive conversation here, let's not further rehash the past.

I ask again:
Regardless of who wins the election, how should the US approach it's war on terrorism?

[chinard]

There is an organization that is TRYING to do that (the UN), but guess what? Bush already went against their decision when he decided to go vigilante against iraq!

The UN does nothing but talk, and never took action after over a dozen "sanctions". What good are threats and rules that aren't enforced? Any parent knows that. The UN is clueless.

the U.N. sent in weapons inspectors. They found nothing!!
NOTHING!!!
The U.S. didnt belive the results and went in anyways, what did they find? NOTHING!!!

Saying they are "all talk" is just a republican cop-out.
I would rather see proper negotiations than see another 1000 soldiers and civilians die in vein.

And dont give me this crap that clinton (or whoever) would have done nothing. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to point to afghanistan and say "destroy that"

Clinton? Clinton (between oral favors) bombed an aspirin factory (killing a civilian) and passed on bin Ladin when he had the chance. He also dismantled a large portion of our military. If we're going to have a productive conversation here, let's not further rehash the past.

-clinton only lied about sex, bush lied and americans are dead.
-bush ALSO passed on bin laden. this came out in the 9/11 hearings even after he was handed a CIA report titled "bin laden determined to attack the U.S."
-bush ALSO sent in INSUFFICENT NUMBERS of troops and supplies for the size job that was required
-and as far as mis-bombings and civilian casualtys? Every president has had them (regan and grenada?), but i think bush has that beat by a long shot with this iraq fiasco. Of course fox news wont cover THAT because it makes rumsfeld look bad.

[cnegrad]

the U.N. sent in weapons inspectors. They found nothing!!
NOTHING!

Forget Iraq, forget Bush & Kerry (can you?) Regardless of who wins the election, how should the US approach it's war on terrorism?

[chinard]

the U.N. sent in weapons inspectors. They found nothing!!
NOTHING!

Forget Iraq, forget Bush & Kerry (can you?) Regardless of who wins the election, how should the US approach it's war on terrorism?

we've been telling you, but you havent been listening.
Its the U.N.'s job to fix the terroris problem.
The U.S. should be SUPPORTING and STRENGTHENING the U.N. instead of undermining it.
Then and ONLY THEN will the U.N. have the clout and cooperation needed to obliterate the countries that wont "clean house"
Sending forces into afhanistan was the right course of action, but they let the al-queda get away.
They need to go after the saudi's next because they are the ones that are funding these animals.
Forget about iraq. Finish business, get our troops out of there, and admit that mistakes were made.

EDIT: almost forgot.. Napalm the al-jazeera network. They are the jerks who are glorifying the suicide attacks.

[cnegrad]

Oh I'm listening alright, but I can't accept your "solution". I can't resolve letting an impotent, financially & politically corrupt organization (which has no system of checks and balances) handle the immense problem of terrorism. If you want me to consider as truth some of the things you say about Bush, I suggest you consider as truth some of what I tell you about the UN.

[chinard]

I can't resolve letting an impotent, financially & politically corrupt organization (which has no system of checks and balances) handle the immense problem of terrorism.

Wait, are we talking about the U.N. or the republicans here?
(couldnt resist, sorry..)

Anyways, my point is that it is in the best interests of the so-called war on terror to make sure that the international organizations that are set up to deal with these issues works.
If it is broken, fix it. Dont undermine it.

[cnegrad]

If it is broken, fix it.

Unfortunately, far easier said than done. When you have a solution for this one, call me.

[chinard]

If it is broken, fix it.

Unfortunately, far easier said than done. When you have a solution for this one, call me.

If the president was any kind of real leader, he could find a way to do it.
I'm not saying kerry would have any better chances of doing it either.
This is why i dont support either candidate.

[GregC]

cnegrad wrote:

GregC,

So if we use your idea, can we hold Bill Clinton accountable for 9/11? Sounds fair to me...

cnegrad wrote:
Quote:
the U.N. sent in weapons inspectors. They found nothing!!
NOTHING!
Forget Iraq, forget Bush & Kerry (can you?) Regardless of who wins the election, how should the US approach it's war on terrorism?

chinard wrote:
we've been telling you, but you havent been listening.
Its the U.N.'s job to fix the terroris problem.
The U.S. should be SUPPORTING and STRENGTHENING the U.N. instead of undermining it.
Then and ONLY THEN will the U.N. have the clout and cooperation needed to obliterate the countries that wont "clean house"
Sending forces into afhanistan was the right course of action, but they let the al-queda get away.
They need to go after the saudi's next because they are the ones that are funding these animals.
Forget about iraq. Finish business, get our troops out of there, and admit that mistakes were made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cne, you are discussing and responding to important issues like a Bush supporter.

1) Clinton is not running for president. Picking the next president is the
ISSUE.

2) Bush, Cheney and co failed to find the REAL target, bin laden/al-queda
in Afganistan. They failed. They compounded their failure by going into Iraq.

Chinard is suggesting a valid alternative. Cne, your leader is following
a ' my ideology is right ' course of action. He should not be allowed to spend and waste our $$ into oblivion.

First of all, terror is a TOOL. The extreme Islamic fundamentalist groups who despise America and our democracy is what we, our country, and whatever allies we have left ( another Bush mess ) should be focusing the fight on.

This cowboy go it alone, divide the country and make it more anxious
is an objective failure. Our country has lost creditability and has lost focus. For the media to discuss issues from 30 years ago is another
incredible waste of time.

I believe we should fire those that have perpetrated this cynical mess the past 4 years. I realize this is another election of the lesser of 2 evils.
I also believe that the Democratic party did make the best choice with Kerry.

[londonlad]

I think one thing the west (not just the US) could do is share the wealth a little more.

I'm not supprised people get fanatical when you look at how we live compared to the average human being in Afganistan for example.

A bit less greed on our parts could go a long way towards a peaceful solution..

I have to say cnegrad, for a man who is openly devoutly Christian, I find it a little supprising that you would throw so much weight and support behind a man, and an administration, who are happy to bomb children.

[delerium]

[quote="cnegrad"] The UN does nothing but talk, and never took action after over a dozen "sanctions". What good are threats and rules that aren't enforced? Any parent knows that. The UN is clueless.[quote]

Brainwashed
Brainwashed
Brainwashed
Brainwashed


Keep believeing the lies. By the way, it's not up to Bush to decide that the UN is clueless. The Iraq invasion is ILLEGAL, no matter which way you look at it.

[delerium]

I have to say cnegrad, for a man who is openly devoutly Christian, I find it a little supprising that you would throw so much weight and support behind a man, and an administration, who are happy to bomb children.

Bush has won over the mindless "Christian" vote by calling himself a "Christian", whatever that means....

[Morbius]

Hey!

How about if you all just agree to disagree, and drop it before things get any uglier?

I thought we were all 'friends' around here, but seems to me this is getting a little out of hand. 'Discussions' like this really just never work out to anyone's benefit.

Chill, my friends......chill.
Let's get back to music, eh?


Morbius