Predctions on Election 2004

[??????????]

Yes, Americans want a president who will end the war on terror. Good job democrats. Typical, exactly why 9/11 happened in the first place. Clinton not caring about terrorism.

[??????????]

Oh yes, I remember how Clinton fought terrorism. He knew about Osama Bin Laden and his exact location...nothing. Nigeria (I believe) told the CIA where they could find him....nothing. The USS Cole was bombed....nothing. Good job Clinton, I'm glad to see launching a few missles did something. Bush was only sworn in Jan of 2001, he was still building his Administration when we were attacked on 9/11. If it happened 9/11/02 or 03 I might agree with you.

[??????????]

Oh yes, I remember how Clinton fought terrorism. He knew about Osama Bin Laden and his exact location...nothing. Nigeria (I believe) told the CIA where they could find him....nothing. The USS Cole was bombed....nothing. Good job Clinton, I'm glad to see launching a few missles did something. Bush was only sworn in Jan of 2001, he was still building his Administration when we were attacked on 9/11. If it happened 9/11/02 or 03 I might agree with you.

So do you also think Reagan was soft on terrorism?  I mean come on, marine barracks in Lebanon get bombed ... nothing.  Heck, all he did was drop a few bombs on Tripoli.

And I would like to repeat that I do not blame the Bush administration for 9/11.  But lets consider their rhetoric during the election and the rhetoric out of Congress.  A missile shield was the biggest security concern to them.

Yes! I agree 100% Reagan was soft on terrorism! But I'll also contend that it wasnt to the extent it is now until after the fall of the Soviet Union. The US trained Osama and many of our current enemies. But that was the times and the number one priority was defeating communism. A missle shield is still a very good idea, considering North Korea and possibly Iran. Things change, a lot of things did after 9/11. What Bush did before that and after should be put into consideration. Did many common Americans think a major attack was coming?

[??????????]

Bush has proved the democrats wrong on the fact that you dont fight terrorism with police raids, arrests and trials. You take them to war, and you eliminate them before they can come here. Just like in the early part of the 19th Century fighting the pirates out of Tripoli.

[??????????]

The War of 1812 was preemptive as well and we almost lost our arses to the British.

[??????????]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive? Would you rather the enemy come on our soil or take the war to them and destroy them before they destroy us. Believe me Islamic Fundamentalists are never going to ever sit down have tea and discuss things.

[??????????]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive?

statesrights, that's really at the heart of the debate, I think.  This year's election is largely a referendum on the President.  Of course it involves more important political issues (where is my next meal coming from?, or, you want to take how much out of my check?!) and less important political issues (get a load of those two fags, and all in public like that!).  But for a major portion of those swing voters, the Bush Doctrine is on trial.  Some are warming up to it, but we have reservations.  At the moment, my reservations are being trumped by the fact that the Bush Doctrine does seem to be working.  Bush is NOT a cheap date, and he does like to spend my money, but he makes me feel good about myself.  Hell, maybe in a hundred years he'll be on the ten-dollar bill.

Spend away, they print the money in the first place. lol

[??????????]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive? Would you rather the enemy come on our soil or take the war to them and destroy them before they destroy us. Believe me Islamic Fundamentalists are never going to ever sit down have tea and discuss things.

What's wrong with being pre-emptive? It depends on your definiton of the word, but I'd say that the tiny little problem is that you will sooner or later be starting wars that were really unecessary, like WWI, the reason why we stopped doing foreign policy like that, and you will have a much more unstable world. You also accept the rules of rouge states and refuse to rise above lesser countries.

I'd rather destroy all the tyrants of the world then have one come over here with a nuke and kill ten million of our people. Most Middle Eastern countries today are a threat to us. We took care of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's had many positive results. Look what Libya has now done. Do you think if Bush had done very little, or nothing Libya would have just come clean about TWA and their WMDs'? The WMD is Iraq was Saddam like it or not. I believe his weapons were there when we went in, and I believe they are still there waiting for us to uncover them.

[??????????]

I believe being pre-emptive is wrong if the ultimate goal is to create a colony out of the vanquished nation. But the U.S. goes in to countries with the goal of freeing the peoples or destroying a tyrant.

[??????????]

I think the majority of the wars we have fought have been sincere. World War 1 is questionable to begin with, WW2 to free the oppressed peoples of Europe and Asia. Korea, to stop the spread of a repressives Communist Govt. Vietnam, can be looked at the same as Korea, although us getting involved in a Civil War was a failure. First Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. The Balkan mess, to give the people of that region peace. I agree that some other motives may have been in some of these wars, but why we went to these countries in the first place was because of a good heart.

[??????????]

but why we went to these countries in the first place was because of a good heart.

Yes.  Americans hearts are in the right place.  Unfortunately, people with good hearts can sometimes be manipulated.  We  should be careful with our future.  We are now engaged in two wars.  The President and the congress have their hands full.  Don't buy into that horseshít about WWI being the first 'moral war.'  All wars ever fought, in the history of our species, were fought over gold.

WW 1 wasnt a moral war. I actually think Austria had a right to defend itself after their Archduke was killed.