View Full Version : Kerry: Forget 9/11, terrorists just a 'nuisance'
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 07:30 PM
Tough talker John Kerry says why focus on terrorism, they are just a nuisance. This is how the rich Massachusetts blueblood is going to protect us from terrorists, by issuing summonses I guess. I sure hope Paris is okay with this. Hope it passes Kerry's "global test."
Sorry, Mr. Kerry, that the friends I lost on 9/11 were such an annoyance to you.
"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 told The New York Times Magazine, when asked what it would take to make Americans feel safe.
Kerry article (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31714.htm)
Editorial (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/31684.htm)
watermock
10-12-2004, 07:38 PM
He just wants them to go away.
watermock
10-12-2004, 07:41 PM
Bush is destroying Kerry on this fopaux.
OrangeDoofus
10-12-2004, 08:01 PM
No, he said that the goal should be to get back to a situation where terrorists are just a nuisance -- i.e., where they were in the '90s, '80s, '70s. He did not say that 9/11 was a nuisance.
Really, if you're not going to vote for Kerry, that's fine, but let's stop putting words in his mouth.
watermock
10-12-2004, 08:11 PM
It's an exact quote.
Even is you want to take it into context, he is trying to set the goal line back?
Little John, that doesn't exist.
Your don't reset the goaline.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:12 PM
No, he said that the goal should be to get back to a situation where terrorists are just a nuisance -- i.e., where they were in the '90s, '80s, '70s. He did not say that 9/11 was a nuisance.
Really, if you're not going to vote for Kerry, that's fine, but let's stop putting words in his mouth.
So I guess the lives that were lost in terror attacks in those decades is acceptable to you.
Well, not to me. And certainly not to those families.
Oh, and Kerry is quoted in New York Times Magazine as saying we can be where they are just a nuisance. Nusiance was his word, not mine, and it's in a liberal rag to boot, so you can't claim it's a right wing spin.
Tell me though, how many lives need to be lost before you would consider terrorists stop being a nuisance, and a legitimate threat?
I'm all for getting as many of them as we can, when we can. Maybe Paris would disagree.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:20 PM
Bush says we will hunt down terrorists where they hide, Kerry says let's go back to the occasional bombing and the anonymous lives lost.
Maybe the leaders Kerry was talking about that wanted him to win were bin laden, and his terror cronies around the world. And why wouldn't they.
Sounds to me his policy would be 'please, just a few bombings here and there and we'll let you be'.
OrangeDoofus
10-12-2004, 08:24 PM
So I guess the lives that were lost in terror attacks in those decades is acceptable to you.
No, that's not what I said, and you know it.
There's no number of deaths due to terrorism that's "acceptable". There's also no number of criminal homicides that's "acceptable". There's no number of lives lost in automobile accidents that's "acceptable". There's no number of lives lost to disease, or starvation, or natural distaster that's "acceptable".
The fact is though, that none of those things will ever be eliminated. You can't eliminate terrorism any more than you can eliminate crime. The best you can do is reduce it to the lowest level possible.
Tell me though, how many lives need to be lost before you would consider terrorists stop being a nuisance, and a legitimate threat?
Please point to where I said they aren't a legitimate threat now.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:34 PM
No, that's not what I said, and you know it.
There's no number of deaths due to terrorism that's "acceptable". There's also no number of criminal homicides that's "acceptable". There's no number of lives lost in automobile accidents that's "acceptable". There's no number of lives lost to disease, or starvation, or natural distaster that's "acceptable".
The fact is though, that none of those things will ever be eliminated. You can't eliminate terrorism any more than you can eliminate crime. The best you can do is reduce it to the lowest level possible.
Please point to where I said they aren't a legitimate threat now.
You defended Kerry's statement, which says he wants terrorism to be like how it was back in those years:
No, he said that the goal should be to get back to a situation where terrorists are just a nuisance -- i.e., where they were in the '90s, '80s, '70s. He did not say that 9/11 was a nuisance.
Now you're saying that any terrorism is unacceptable, so which is it?
Bush says we'll hunt terrorists where they are, you defended a position of "a few here and there is ok".
Every terrorist bombing is one too many, so I don't want to hear the President of the United States tell me if we can keep the bombings to a minimum, we'll be okay.
Will it ever be eradicated totally? If it is, it will take a helluva long time, no doubt about it.
But I at least want a president, republican or democrat, that takes it more seriously, and doesn't have a policy of hoping terrorists will strike less frequently.
Dude do you really think you will ever see a day where terrorism is eradicated.
Bush declared war on a word.
Kerry has a plan that includes our allies in a joint effort to search out and destroy these killers of the innocent. I like Kerry's plan over Bush's bravura
OrangeDoofus
10-12-2004, 08:41 PM
You defended Kerry's statement, which says he wants terrorism to be like how it was back in those years:
I said "point to where I said they aren't a legitimate threat now".
Still waiting.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:43 PM
Dude do you really think you will ever see a day where terrorism is eradicated.
Bush declared war on a word.
Kerry has a plan that includes our allies in a joint effort to search out and destroy these killers of the innocent. I like Kerry's plan over Bush's bravura
You mean the allies that had under the table kickbacks and billion dollar oil contracts with Saddam Hussein?
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:45 PM
I said "point to where I said they aren't a legitimate threat now".
Still waiting.
The point is, terrorists are ALWAYS a legitimate threat. How can you possibly deny that?
They are now, and they were in the 90's 80's and 70's, the era's you think the world was safe from them.
Why do we need a 9/11 for people to realize this?
watermock
10-12-2004, 08:47 PM
Kerry has a plan that includes our allies in a joint effort to search out and destroy these killers of the innocent. I like Kerry's plan over Bush's bravura
I have a wet dream. Just because Kerry has a dream that includes our "allies" which haven EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED, to search out and destroy these killers WHEN ONLY OUR SPECIAL FORCES KNOW WHERE THEY ARE...they are going to search out and destoy the killers of the innocent.
Your an idiot.
First we have allready asked for allies. Second, There is no "bravura" from Kerry.
The rest is "I have a Plan"
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:51 PM
No, he said that the goal should be to get back to a situation where terrorists are just a nuisance -- i.e., where they were in the '90s, '80s, '70s. He did not say that 9/11 was a nuisance.
By the way, the 1990's, the decade where you and Kerry believe terrorism was just a nuisance, was the decade the 9/11 attacks were hatched and plotted.
You mean the allies that had under the table kickbacks and billion dollar oil contracts with Saddam Hussein?
The free and powerful nations of the world better work together on this problem of terrorism or the world is going to become a real shiity place to raise a family.
We need new leadership a leadership that understands the importance of working together with all the free nations of the world an Kerry has promised to do just that while Bush promises more of the same. Do you really want more of the same. Bush has created an "us against the world" climate, this simply will not work over time.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:53 PM
I have a wet dream. Just because Kerry has a dream that includes our "allies" which haven EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED, to search out and destroy these killers WHEN ONLY OUR SPECIAL FORCES KNOW WHERE THEY ARE...they are going to search out and destoy the killers of the innocent.
Your an idiot.
First we have allready asked for allies. Second, There is no "bravura" from Kerry.
The rest is "I have a Plan"
We have no allies, yet we have Pakistan hunting down and arresting or killing terroists. I don't recall Pakistan working in contingent with us prior to 2001.
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:55 PM
The free and powerful nations of the world better work together on this problem of terrorism or the world is going to become a real shiity place to raise a family.
We need new leadership a leadership that understands the importance of working together with all the free nations of the world an Kerry has promised to do just that while Bush promises more of the same. Do you really want more of the same. Bush has created an "us against the world" climate, this simply will not work over time.
What has our "ally" Vlad Putin done to combat terroism? He had a theater full of hostages gassed and killed, and a school full of children terrorized and murdered.
This is someone bent on combating terrorism?
winstoncup bronco
10-12-2004, 08:57 PM
We need new leadership a leadership that understands the importance of working together with all the free nations of the world an Kerry has promised to do just that while Bush promises more of the same. Do you really want more of the same. Bush has created an "us against the world" climate, this simply will not work over time.
Yeah, you're right. We'll just sit back and wait for another attack, then check with Paris and Moscow to see if we can pass the "global test" and defend ourselves.
All this money being wasted on counter-terrorism programs. What is Bush thinking?
What we need is a leader who will not take **** from anyone, not one pandering to countries that have special interests.
watermock
10-12-2004, 09:01 PM
The free and powerful nations of the world better work together on this problem of terrorism or the world is going to become a real shiity place to raise a family.
We allready asked them to help. the Food For Terrorism Programme seemed to inhibit them. I love how you tie safe children to France. Nice try, but pathetic.
We need new leadership a leadership that understands the importance of working together with all the free nations of the world an Kerry has promised to do just that while Bush promises more of the same. Do you really want more of the same. Bush has created an "us against the world" climate, this simply will not work over time.
First your just making an assertion, and can give nothing more than another assertion that kerry understands the importance of working together. I am not sure you understand this, but the United States went to the UN multiple times.
Bush has never said he can't adjust policy whatsoever. It's just your assertion. Bush has never said he has an inflexible foriegn policy whatsoever. Your just talking out of your ass as usual.
It's amusing when Bush in every speech asks for help from other nations and you have the balls to tell me he isn't asking for help.
It's not essential that all countries agree with us. I will say that we are pissed off and are laying down some cowboy justice. So what.
Yeah, you're right. We'll just sit back and wait for another attack, then check with Paris and Moscow to see if we can pass the "global test" and defend ourselves.
All this money being wasted on counter-terrorism programs. What is Bush thinking?
What we need is a leader who will not take **** from anyone, not one pandering to countries that have special interests.
The tried and true formula for a world power to fall is through their own arrogant thinking they can stand alone against the rest of the world. This is what Bush is advocating and what you are defending. This "feel good" policy has never worked, never. If Bush gets four more years America will be diminished, only the degree is in doubt.
We allready asked them to help. the Food For Terrorism Programme seemed to inhibit them. I love how you tie safe children to France. Nice try, but pathetic.
First your just making an assertion, and can give nothing more than another assertion that kerry understands the importance of working together. I am not sure you understand this, but the United States went to the UN multiple times.
Bush has never said he can't adjust policy whatsoever. It's just your assertion. Bush has never said he has an inflexible foriegn policy whatsoever. Your just talking out of your ass as usual.
It's amusing when Bush in every speech asks for help from other nations and you have the balls to tell me he isn't asking for help.
<b>It's not essential that all countries agree with us. I will say that we are pissed off and are laying down some cowboy justice. So what.</b>
Herein lays the basic difference between you and I and the reason why I never address you on serious matters.
watermock
10-12-2004, 09:18 PM
The tried and true formula for a world power to fall is through their own arrogant thinking they can stand alone against the rest of the world.
First off, there is no "tried and true formula" Second, it's not arrogance, it's self preservation. And Third, yes we can stand against the rest of the world. Give me one reason we can't. Go on tell me why we can't.
This is what Bush is advocating and what you are defending. This "feel good" policy has never worked, never.http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=829&dateline=1065388564
Wrong. It is absolutely NOT what Bush is advocating, it's what your asserting. And it's not a "feel good" policy, It's just your description. Kerry has the feel good policy where terrorism is just a nuciance.
broncogary
10-12-2004, 09:20 PM
Hell, why do we need a President? We can just poll Europe and do whatever they say.
Hell, why do we need a President? We can just poll Europe and do whatever they say.
Lets see we got three quarters of our army in Iraq and that ain't enough by most accounts and you hero's want it piss on out traditional allies, limit our range of potential allies to Europe, generally alienate any country that does not do exactly as told, not to mention paying steep bribes to have lesser countries to "join" our coalition. We need friends ladies and gentlemen cause we all agree there are some very bad people in the world.
FADERPROOF
10-12-2004, 09:32 PM
Tough talker John Kerry says why focus on terrorism, they are just a nuisance. This is how the rich Massachusetts blueblood is going to protect us from terrorists, by issuing summonses I guess. I sure hope Paris is okay with this. Hope it passes Kerry's "global test."
Sorry, Mr. Kerry, that the friends I lost on 9/11 were such an annoyance to you.
Kerry article (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31714.htm)
Editorial (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/31684.htm)
Sounds to me like a Presidential candidate that actually realizes how fictional a world with terrorism is.
broncogary
10-12-2004, 09:49 PM
Lets see we got three quarters of our army in Iraq and that ain't enough by most accounts and you hero's want it piss on out traditional allies, limit our range of potential allies to Europe, generally alienate any country that does not do exactly as told, not to mention paying steep bribes to have lesser countries to "join" our coalition. We need friends ladies and gentlemen cause we all agree there are some very bad people in the world.
Thank you, Neville.
watermock
10-12-2004, 09:53 PM
Lets see we got three quarters of our army in Iraq and that ain't enough by most accounts and you hero's want it piss on out traditional allies,
first, it's an outright lie. 3/4 of the army isn't in Iraq. Your full of schiat. Second, that ain't enough by most accounts you should have documentation. You can never have "too many" troops. Our troops have served well.
limit our range of potential allies to Europe, generally alienate any country that does not do exactly as told, not to mention paying steep bribes to have lesser countries to "join" our coalition.
Noone "limited" anything. Noone told anone to do exactly as they were told. Your lying out of your ass. The bribes were coming from Saddam you dimwit.
We need friends ladies and gentlemen cause we all agree there are some very bad people in the world.
First, you make an assumption that we all agree with you. You make a pathetic comment that there are very bad people in the world. Yes, we need governments to support freedom. When that doesn't happen, you just don't wimp out.
You don't ask France if it's wife in on her period. Do you think we asked France if it was OK to invade Vichey france and take out her navy?
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=us++bribes+turkey
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/
broncogary
10-12-2004, 10:01 PM
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=us++bribes+turkey
As Blue would say, "At least he provided a link." :woowoo:
Well G' nite boys
God bless America and no one else!
watermock
10-12-2004, 10:07 PM
Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
How amusing.
errand
10-12-2004, 10:14 PM
No, he said that the goal should be to get back to a situation where terrorists are just a nuisance -- i.e., where they were in the '90s, '80s, '70s. He did not say that 9/11 was a nuisance.
Really, if you're not going to vote for Kerry, that's fine, but let's stop putting words in his mouth.
So your down with only a few Americans being murdered by terrorists? As long as they don't murder say what? How many americans would have to die ina terrorist attack before you or Kerry would classify it as being more than a nuisance?
The next thing you know, John Edwards will be promising quadriplegics that they'll be able to walk if Kerry were president.
errand
10-12-2004, 10:22 PM
The free and powerful nations of the world better work together on this problem of terrorism or the world is going to become a real shiity place to raise a family.
We need new leadership a leadership that understands the importance of working together with all the free nations of the world an Kerry has promised to do just that while Bush promises more of the same. Do you really want more of the same. Bush has created an "us against the world" climate, this simply will not work over time.
None of john's homeslices from France or Germany will commit to helping us, even if he's the prez. Kerry thinks he can talk things over with these clowns.
Bush went to the UN, and all he got was "We condemn these terrorist acts!" They didn't lift one freaking finger to help us locate or eliminate these bastards. And as my 'ol grandpa said many times...."If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself"
And since when did the US have to ask for permission to defend our nation?
errand
10-12-2004, 10:32 PM
Lets see we got three quarters of our army in Iraq and that ain't enough by most accounts and you hero's want it piss on out traditional allies, limit our range of potential allies to Europe, generally alienate any country that does not do exactly as told,
We pissed on our traditional allies? Germany has never been a traditional ally, and France? The only time the French have been on our side is when we had to whoop the German's asses to liberate them.
not to mention paying steep bribes to have lesser countries to "join" our coalition. We need friends ladies and gentlemen cause we all agree there are some very bad people in the world.
And of course calling those that actually did help us out like Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Poland, etc. the "bribed and coerced" scored all kinds of points with those nations didn't it?
Do you think Britain will join Kerry after he dimissed their contributions? Australia? Poland? Turkey? Any of the other "insignificant nations" (Kerry's and Edward's words, not mine) that we allegedly bribed and coerced?
We had 34 nations help out in Desert Storm, a war that btw passed the "global test"....and Kerry voted against it. Now we have 30 nations in a war that Kerry doesn't believed passed the "global test" and he voted for it.
broncogary
10-12-2004, 10:36 PM
We pissed on our traditional allies? Germany has never been a traditional ally, ...
What about WWII? If we had talked to them nicely, they would have been our ally. zowie!
errand
10-12-2004, 10:46 PM
Yeah, and just like Madeleine Albright dealing with N. Korea, 'ol Neville Chamberlain thought he could trust a brutal dictator when he gave his word.
OrangeDoofus
10-12-2004, 11:09 PM
The point is, terrorists are ALWAYS a legitimate threat. How can you possibly deny that?
Okay, now you can point to where I denied that terrorists were ever a legitimate threat.
They are now, and they were in the 90's 80's and 70's, the era's you think the world was safe from them.
Another thing I didn't say. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you, since you don't seem to be paying attention to anything I say.