and didn't kerry and edwards come out and say they will win the war on terror???

yet they don't give any plan for winning and most of you kerry supporters here seem to agree that it can be won in a traditional way.

 

Yes they want a kinder gentler war. I think they are gonna give the terrorists teddy bears h:

 

The whole "war on terror" is the most idiotic move made by a president.

1. You can't wage war on ideas or ideals. They're intangible and cannot be "destroyed" even if Bush OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT dominated every country on earth suspected or harboring terrorists or disliking the U.S.

2. Now it's always going to be how the next president will "fight the war on terror" because if you declare and END to the war on terror then you're going to look like a coward or a non-patriot.

Basically Bush just dug a big hole for future leaders while supposedly benefitting himself and his friends through oil and building contracts in Iraq. (Before you start going off on THAT idea please read the "SUPPOSEDLY" part. I've heard the idea suggested but I don't put any faith in it personally. Even if I did you shouldn't worry about what I think if it offends you that much.)

Bush said you "can't win" the war on terror. So wtf are our troops still doing in Iraq? They want to go home. Let them. We're done there. Anyway...

John Kerry: "You don't goto war when you want to, you goto war when you have to."

Peace.

 

1. As far as I can tell he's been "fighting" this "non-traditional war" in all the "traditional" ways i.e. troops, bombs, missiles, whatever. So you think he KNOWS it's not "traditional" and just wastes all those resources and tax dollars so people will feel more secure? Way to be; and if he's just figuring out that this is a "non-traditional war" when you have supposedly had this figured out all along then I think YOU should be the next republican nominee for Pres. Even a HANer would be better than Bush.

2. Unless I'm out of my mind with #1 then your comment regarding "common sense" doesn't make much (sense) to me.

I sure do love numbering my points... makes it easy for people to refer back to em.

 

I never said there wasn't a traditional way to fight a war on terror, just not a traditional way to win, in the sense that terrorism can any everywhere or no where, all depending on who wants to be a terrorist. This isn't like a country vs. country war. Its idea vs. idea, which has no bounds in terms of land or countries. Got it?

 

Right, so if we can fight "traditionally" yet not win "traditionally" then the point of wasting those aforementioned resources is... what? If you accept that you're fighting a war "traditionally" without the possibility of achieving victory "traditionally" then there isn't any real payoff in the end now is there?

You can't have a "war of ideas". That's called a debate, if you really want to stretch things. They aren't having a debate in Iraq, last I checked.

 

If you have any other better ideas of eliminating the existance of terrorism other than declaring "war" on them, I'd love to hear it. In fact, I'm sure or military and central intelligence would love to hear it. Tell Colin Powell while you're at it, too.

 

Central Intelligence was smart enough to leave us open to attack to begin with last I heard, my friend. Counting on them to be smart enough to react to an attack like 9/11 isn't something I'd do. As far as the military or Colin Powell go, I wouldn't care to have a conversation with either one as A. one of them is a complex that answers to a government and not myself and B. Mr. Powell would consider himself more intelligent and of a greater intellect than an 18-year-old Californian kid who goes to Community College and intends to transfer to a UC in two years. Whether I have a better idea or not doesn't matter at all, but if you can get me into a room with the heads of military and intelligence along with Colin Powell then PM me.

But to get to your real question about what I'd have had happen in place of this so-called "war": I'd have reassured the american people that they were safe and make them feel secure (like Bush did). I'd do everything in my power to aid those who need it after 9/11 (like Bush did, I'm sure). After that, I'd tighten security within the nation for the next six months while a worldwide manhunt was launched in search of Osama Bin Laden and those directly linked to the planning and execution of 9/11. In this hypothetical reality, once Osama and co. was caught then I'd leave Iraq and the middle-east altogether. There's no war, no occupation and those guilty get what they deserve; death. As far as Saddam and all that goes; it's not our job to police the world and there are other countries that 1. hate us 2. have nasty weapons and 3. can do more harm than Iraq ever could have, yet we aren't bothering them at all.

If you find flaw in that then PM me bout that too and we'll talk all you like about what you and I would have done after 9/11. My reasons for posting in this thread disappeared with your entry quoted above as it's no longer regarding the one made previously that commented on "common sense" and "traditional" wars etc.

Thank you and have a good day.

 

Not be assholes to other groups of people around the world? I mean, when you ally yourself with Israel and give then weapons so they can fight the Palestinians, you come to expect that maybe this pisses some people off.

 

They both flip flop an awful lot. They're politicians and that's what they do. The issue at hand is that the Bush campaign is doing it's best to focus people on superficial things like stirring up an untrue military quagmire and attacking their opponent on reconsidering his stances. That's because, on a policy standpoint, their administration has little to nothing to offer the vast majority of US citizens. I mean... seriously. Bush's economic plans have been heavily criticized by economists, while Kerry's preliminary plans have received the seal of approval from 10 nobel laureates in Econ. Who do you think has the better plan?