Who in their right mind would vote for him?
-
explainmyself — 18 years ago(November 23, 2007 01:57 AM)
Terror will always exist. Has always existed. That's true. But there have been no attacks on Americans since 9/11/2001. This is probably not an accident. Terror attacks on Americans was reduced greatly since General Pershing's actions in Southeast Asia. Also not an accident. Terrorists understand strength and force. Not cowardice.
I know this is a conservative mantra as of late, and it is true for the most part in terms of large scale attacks (if we don't count the anthrax stuff in late 2001, which was definitely an act of terrorism, but we have no conclusive answer to exactly who was responsible), but here's the thing: We strengthened our security in airports and other US-soil based security risks exponentially following 9/11. I would say that had a lot more to do with reducing and preventing possible attacks than our Iraq occupation. Also, another fact to consider when reciting this mantra: looking at past patterns, large scale attacks on US soil tend to be spaced apart by years at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terror ism_against_Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United _States
So when you say "Terror attacks on Americans was reduced greatly" what numbers are you comparing it to? And what severity of attacks are you using in this ostentatiously broad statement?
To say that GWB has worsened the situation is erroneous without any facts. I will ignore.
Sure, ignore how I followed up that sentence by saying that Al-Qaeda presence and anti-American sentiment in Iraq have increased since the beginning of this war as a factual example of how GWB has aggravated the situation with his so very dubious "War on Terror."
The link between Hussein and Al-Quaeda is that Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq under Saddam's regime was minimal due to ideological conflict. When Saddam was taken out of the equation, Al Qaeda had a chance to increase in number in Iraq.
I honestly have to question anyone's intelligence who continues to support this war in Iraq and/or anyone who believes that the republican party is the
only
party that is able to prevent and mitigate terrorism at home and abroad. But it seems fear mongering works really well on the feeble minded
4000+ US soldiers have died. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died.
You should know, getting news Hannity style or in any of the duplicitous varieties in that vein is not ideal. Our motives for this war are extremely questionable at best, but even if you had a bright, "We're there to spread democracy!" type outlook in the beginning, even Helen Keller can tell we've gone and dug ourselves into a complete disaster. Spinning that fact with fabrication and delusion is not the way to go. I don't understand how any of the "pro-continuation of this war" candidates expect to win. The majority of the American public disagrees with it now and rightfully so.
If and/or when you respond, please provide sources. -
ldddhunter — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 03:37 PM)
I would vote for Rudy its my choice for 2008! I think he would be the best one for the White House, Obama certainly wouldn't be the right choice thats for sure. Now I am not putting anybody down for voting for Obama or Hillary why is it such a shock that someone would vote for Rudy. I also like Fred Thompson, but I don't think he has has a chance, unfortunately. Why do people think he such a nutty choice if you like Rudy? Why so much hate for this man anyway? I don't get it.