• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kerry quote on Terrorists in NYTIMES

Oh I'm so sorry that I didn't realize what damage has been done. Wow maybe I ought to change my stance on this issue. Yeah right! How many Iraqis have we mistakingly killed huh? Well, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. Let me say that again, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. He picked out people at random and had them executed. He tortured many others. He used poisonous gas on the kurds. There are countless mass graves. Every single Iraqi lived in a constant state of fear.

Today there are people in Iraq who are scared also. They are scared of suicide bombers. These people are hopeful for the future. Iraq has some dangerous parts, but only 3 provinces are considered real danger zones. Over time the treat of violence will deteriorate and the people will prosper.

Now explain this to me (I beg you please): How in the can you consider Saddam's brutal regime to be more peaceful than what is going on now? :mad:
 
However many he killed, it was over the course of thirty years. I wonder how many we will have killed or will have killed each other when we have been there thirty years. :eek:
 
I may not know what I am saying, but I think that I heard somewhere that the Iraqi are suppose to have a better turnout than us. If this is true, then I guess that the Iraqis do want freedom. I just may be right.
 
We may not be there for thirty years, we may be there for sixty.
 
Hey and Mateo! means wait, and Comenosai means i'm sorry.

Saddam did that with weapons that WE gave him. Republicans always brush over that fact when they talk about Saddam's crimes.
 
"We may not be there for thirty years, we may be there for sixty."
Rhadamanthus

Yeah right! I don't know what to say. Sixty years? more like six.

When did we give Saddam weapon's? How many? what kind? Under who's administration? I just want to know. I know that we gave the people of Afghanistan weapons to fight the USSR, and now they use it against us.
Anyway, that's not the point. It doesn't take away what he did, or makes it any worse. Who cares, where he got them from (even though it sucks that he may of got some from us). That's BAGA!!!

P.S. heyjoeo thanks for the japanesse lessons. :D
 
Last edited:
Rhadamanthus said:
We may not be there for thirty years, we may be there for sixty.
Click to expand...

Care to tell us how long we have been in Germany and in South Korea?
 
How long have we been in the Phillipines?
We left for a year and promptly went back because thier 'economy' was in shambles and gorilla warfare.
Hint: 1947
 
pwo said:
"We may not be there for thirty years, we may be there for sixty."
Rhadamanthus

Yeah right! I don't know what to say. Sixty years? more like six.

When did we give Saddam weapon's? How many? what kind? Under who's administration? I just want to know. I know that we gave the people of Afghanistan weapons to fight the USSR, and now they use it against us.
Anyway, that's not the point. It doesn't take away what he did, or makes it any worse. Who cares, where he got them from (even though it sucks that he may of got some from us). That's BAGA!!!

P.S. heyjoeo thanks for the japanesse lessons. :D
Click to expand...





================

I could take the time to document that U.S. companies under the watchful eye of the U.S. government in the 1980's sold Iraq the very chemicals that were used to terrorize, but for now a thumbnail sketch. If the facts matter and there's a demand I'll do it later.

In addition, Rumsfeld on behalf of the Reagan admin. normalized relations and attempted alliance AFTER it was known of Iraq's use of WMD. This same weapons use was later used in various presentations as part of Sadaam's dangerousness to the world.

Let me underscore this: Using materials from the U.S., Sadaam used WMD. We took his side because Iran was the bigger threat. After this we rewarded him in various ways. Now, we are using the very same behavior to indict him, but not ourselves.

As a Newliberal, I am careful to always promote the greatness of our country because we are in the process of doing what has never been done for the good of mankind in many ways. Part of our greatness needs to be a willingness to access past failures, compensate where possible, and set positive goals that can be achieved.

http://www.newliberals.org

I present how a liberal foreign policy can make us safer.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
 
I wish we would stop giving people weapons.

You know that I mean major occupation. One little base somewhere in Iraq will not hurt anyone. Anyways, that is beside the point. I am trying to say that we won't be fighting there for that long.
 
craigfarmer said:
================

I could take the time to document that U.S. companies under the watchful eye of the U.S. government in the 1980's sold Iraq the very chemicals that were used to terrorize, but for now a thumbnail sketch. If the facts matter and there's a demand I'll do it later.
Click to expand...

If you wish to present facts... awesome. Your right, doggonit we did indeed give them weapons. What you are missing are the reasons behind it. Please share those with the facts. Oh, and don't forget Russia, the cold war, and Jordan. That would be missing some very important details. Hind site is always 20/20.
 
Who cares if we have a base in their country. Its not like we are trying to run it.
 
We will stop the occupation when they no longer need our help. Allawi said they need us, so we stay.
 
To Kenneth Cornelius.. No, the terrorist are losing big time.Sept.11 happened because we were not paying attention.Don't you think they would have struck again if they could. Recently they claimed to have a hostage, a marine. To come to find out it was a doll. Why has nothing happened since Sept. 11 ?
 
To Kenneth Cornelius.. No, the terrorist are losing big time.Sept.11 happened because we were not paying attention.
Click to expand...

Actually, the terrorists are winning big time, and without having to do a damn thing. We've got a whole new department dedicated to domestic security now that is changing the way we have to live. I have the feeling I can't go to the Smithsonian anymore without some clown confiscating my pocketknife and fingering my balls. Suddenly we are all suspected criminals. I do not feel secure, I feel persecuted. If that is winning, no thanks.

Terrorism is not something that started with a bunch of Islamic zealots; it has been with us for a very long time and will continue to be with us as long as there are malcontents. When I was younger, they used to be called Anarchists. They were caricatured as wild eyed guys in dark overcoats and straggly beards clutching a bomb with a burning fuse. :fu
 
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Actually, the terrorists are winning big time, and without having to do a damn thing. We've got a whole new department dedicated to domestic security now that is changing the way we have to live. I have the feeling I can't go to the Smithsonian anymore without some clown confiscating my pocketknife and fingering my balls. Suddenly we are all suspected criminals. I do not feel secure, I feel persecuted. If that is winning, no thanks.

Terrorism is not something that started with a bunch of Islamic zealots; it has been with us for a very long time and will continue to be with us as long as there are malcontents. When I was younger, they used to be called Anarchists. They were caricatured as wild eyed guys in dark overcoats and straggly beards clutching a bomb with a burning fuse. :fu
Click to expand...
The thing a terrorist has going for him is that after an initial attack has been attributed to 'terror', his prey must maintain a constant 24/7 vigil during which the terrorist is quietly planning the next attack.

A case in point is that pair that was randomly shooting up Northern Virginia and Maryland a couple of years ago. They had that area tied in a knot until they were caught.

The Islamic terrorists have, indeed, changed our way of life in the US, cost us many lives, and untold billions of dollars.

However, I was heartened by the President's throwing down the gauntlet to Syria and Iran, two principal supporters, suppliers, and financiers for the terrorists they harbor and allow to pass through to Iraq.
 
The thing a terrorist has going for him is that after an initial attack has been attributed to 'terror', his prey must maintain a constant 24/7 vigil during which the terrorist is quietly planning the next attack.

A case in point is that pair that was randomly shooting up Northern Virginia and Maryland a couple of years ago. They had that area tied in a knot until they were caught.
Click to expand...

Yes, at the time I was living in that area, and I sometimes shopped in the center where one of the killings took place. A bus driver was also killed nearby. If there was panic it wasn't apparent. People went about their business quite normally, except that they were more alert.

Whether Mohammad and Malvo were terrorists is arguable. They were trying to kill people, and the motive remains unclear to this day.

It depends on the definition of terrorist. I would suggest that there would have to be a deliberate attempt to disrupt society. Just robbing a bank or shooting up a school for personal reasons wouldn't qualify. If those two had shot only a couple of people and then disappeared, they could have extended the effect for a much longer period. It's doubtful that they would have been caught at all.

<snip>
However, I was heartened by the President's throwing down the gauntlet to Syria and Iran, two principal supporters, suppliers, and financiers for the terrorists they harbor and allow to pass through to Iraq.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's an empty threat and everybody knows it.
 

Quote by Fantasea:
The Islamic terrorists have, indeed, changed our way of life in the US, cost us many lives, and untold billions of dollars.

However, I was heartened by the President's throwing down the gauntlet to Syria and Iran, two principal supporters, suppliers, and financiers for the terrorists they harbor and allow to pass through to Iraq.

The problem is that it's an empty threat and everybody knows it.
Click to expand...

Really? The Taliban and Saddam Hussein, among others, have learned, the hard way, that the plain spoken Texas sheriff in the White House says what he means and means what he says, haven't they?
 
Bush taught them how ineffective he is at being a leader. I'm glad we got rid of Saddam but what about Bin Laden. Bush has showed them that if he can't succeed in getting a real terrorist and threat to humanity he will take the easy way out and blame it on someone else.
 
More than that it showed the terrorists that they are not his prime target. There are other people out there he would rather atack than them.
 
Really? The Taliban and Saddam Hussein, among others, have learned, the hard way, that the plain spoken Texas sheriff in the White House says what he means and means what he says, haven't they?
Click to expand...

Maybe the Taliban and Hussein have learned something. If so, they are at least capable of learning something. One would also hope that Bush has learned something, although past experience leads one to doubt that. In any event, he is not going to attack either Syria or especially Iran. For one thing he is pretty well scraping the bottom of the military barrel, and the country can't afford any more adventures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom