Do you think Bush deserves to be re-elected?

[Casey]

Yeah, well Bush did somthing and that is increasing air port security and what not. An also made a Department of Homeland Security? If Al-Qaida/ Terrorists hate us more then ever wouldnt they still hate us even though still we dont do anything? These terrorist cells are all established around the world, and if we dont get them they will commit a terrorist act. They hate us if we do somthing about it or not. Its like having a snake waiting to bite you. We either eliminate the threat or let it grow. imo.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Yeah, well Bush did somthing and that is increasing air port security and what not. An also made a Department of Homeland Security? If Al-Qaida/ Terrorists hate us more then ever wouldnt they still hate us even though still we dont do anything? These terrorist cells are all established around the world, and if we dont get them they will commit a terrorist act. They hate us if we do somthing about it or not. Its like having a snake waiting to bite you. We either eliminate the threat or let it grow. imo.

After 9/11 a woman still made it onto a plane with a massive butcher knife. I feel SO much safer now.

Bush isn't doing anything. Paranoia is what's doing it. We are becoming paranoid about terrorist attacks and thus we are taking "preventive" measures to stop them. How well do they work?

Let's just say that I'd prefer to trust the fact that my chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack are extremely slim instead of trusting that my fellow man, especially those that are in the government are going to protect me.

Bush can talk all he wants about fighting terrorists and whatnot, he can talk about all sorts of sweeping new measures to prevent them, he's not actually DOING anything. If people were to do their JOBS terrorism wouldn't that much of a problem. The problem is people get lax, and then something happens, leading to ultra paranoia. Then it dies down, someone gets lax again, and something else happens. It's just the way things are.

[The Man]

Our efforts to eliminate the threat have resulted in al-Qaida growing in size by about eighteen thousand people. Yeah, it's sure been a successful war on terrorism. :rolleyes2

I don't think a war on terrorism can be won - It's as hopeless as the war on drugs, at least. The war on drugs is actually less unrealistic than the war on terrorism, since at least part of the war on drugs is being fought on home soil; the war on terrorism, is entirely overseas.

Increasing airport security was really a no-brainer. It's not going to eliminate the threat of some similar attack happening though. How difficult would it be for al-Qaida to, for example, steal a gasoline truck, drive it into the centre of New York City, spread its contents throughout the city, and light it on fire? Not only would it be easy for them to do that, it would be ridiculously cheap to do it. I just came up with that off the top of my head too - I'm sure there's plenty of other plans that are even more feasible than that, and there's no way we're going to think of them all, much less be able to prevent them all.

Attempting to combat the war by going to the source is only going to encourage the source to continue growing - It's like fighting fire with fire. They hate us not simply because we're the dominant power, but because of the way we're using our power. They've been saying for years we wanted to occupy an oil-rich country, and when we did it was just playing into their hands. The results are obvious; al-Qaida has swollen dramatically in numbers, and the rest of the world lends their rhetoric a bit more credibility (even if they're still regarded pretty much universally as terrorists) now that some of their predictions have come true.

No, I don't feel safer with Bush in office; I feel more in danger.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

No, I don't feel safer with Bush in office; I feel more in danger.

Pretty much my feelings in a nutshell.

[DocFrance]

I don't think a war on terrorism can be won - It's as hopeless as the war on drugs, at least. The war on drugs is actually less unrealistic than the war on terrorism, since at least part of the war on drugs is being fought on home soil; the war on terrorism, is entirely overseas.

So... we should just give up, right? We should just let people fly planes into our buildings just because we can never truly stop them? That's a very fatalist view.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Who said anything about LETTING them? Why tramp around the desert looking for them and giving them reason to swell their ranks? It's all about effective countermeasures, and I don't see our war as effective in the least. As was said, terrorists can easily kill many people with little cost or even planning. We can take measures to prevent this, of course, but we can't cover everything. The war is just giving them more reason.

[The Man]

Hardly; we should examine why such a thing would happen in the first place, and do whatever we could to prevent it from being likely to happen again. War should only be taken as a last result. We'd hardly exhausted the list of options before we went to Afghanistan, it always seemed to me; I certainly don't think anyone can credibly argue that we'd done so in Iraq's case.

I wouldn't have minded the war on Afghanistan so much if that's what it had remained. Instead, it spread to Iraq and then terrorism in general, and it's being fought now with scant, if any, connections. That's surely going to stop people from flying planes into our buildings when it's the whole reason they wanted to fly planes into our buildings in the first place. :rolleyes2

Edit: 'Kay, I agree with a lot of what Void's saying, as well.

[The Captain]

I've come to the conclusion that the Bush Cabinet is what must go, and by default, Bush will be going with them. Frankly, I think if Bush had dependable, honest, upfront people working for him instead of Ashcroft, Cheney, Rove, Ridge, even Rumsfeld, I'd feel a lot safer. Sure, they're smart men, but they're also cunning, and always gaining more power, which is scary since we didn't elect them, but were appointed.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder, really, wonder, and would like to know what Bush the First was thinking when he decided to end the Gulf War without removing Saddam. Did he think that by removing him, the region would indeed fall into chaos and America would have to stay there? Also makes me wonder how much father and son might have talked about this, because I'm not sure Bush the first would have deemed his son's move to be "Prudent".

Take care all.

[eestlinc]

I think Kerry will win the election because he has amazing resiliancy and toughness. Just like he piloted his boat back into enemy fire to save an overboard soldier, he is amazingly able to stand and absorb very strong political attacks yet emerge victorious. Bush can and will throw the kitchen sink of attacks at Kerry, but Kerry will emerge unfazed just as he did in the primaries, just as he did in 1996 against William Weld.

[Polaris]

Since when was killing people not a crime? Don't say that again. ~Gau

[DocFrance]

Just like he piloted his boat back into enemy fire to save an overboard soldier...

...then he quickly racked up three purple hearts for minor injuries, went back home to protest the war, threw those same medals on to the White House lawn as a political move to gain the anti-war vote, and accused every soldier but himself in Vietnam of committing war crimes. Now, thirty years later, when he decided he needed more votes from war veterans, decided to change his story about the medals around to make himself look like a war hero.

I'll admit that what I said could easily be stretched out of proportion, or it could just be propoganda. So could the thing about him saving a fellow soldier. I guess it's just up to you to decide which story to believe.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I'll admit that what I said could easily be stretched out of proportion, or it could just be propoganda. So could the thing about him saving a fellow soldier. I guess it's just up to you to decide which story to believe.

Or you could just agree that both candidates are lying... well... politicians, and pick the one you think will cause the least damage.

[The Captain]

Frankly, I think a leader with war experience of any kind would trump one without true combat experience in the times of war.

Let's not forget, both men went to Yale, but only one actually enlisted and fought in Vietnam, Kerry. I personally feel that regardless of what may have happened afterwards, the choice to go into war on his own, because remember, he didn't have to go either, he could have played it relatively "safe" as Bush did, should show that he'd be more than a capable leader.

What Bush did, is what many people from his background have done, enlist in the military but not actually the military you and I enlist in. More of the "Elitist" military where you usually don't see true combat. It's not a slam against Bush for doing what he did, but I think Kerry deserves some credit for actually going to war despite his own privileged background.

What boggles my mind is this:

Kerry has been shown to be someone who flip-flops on issues. In reality, don't ALL politicians do this? Didn't Bush completely change his stance on a wide number of issues between the time he spent as Governor and as President, such as foreign policy? I'd prefer a leader who could make a choice, and later, if he/she realized it wasn't correct or eventually began to disagree with it, change there mind. At the very least, take some responsibility for your decisions. Granted Kerry hasn't really shown to do this much, but Bush has NEVER really shown any sort of apology for his mistakes. He just can't seem to admit being wrong, and that, is not leader material. A leader must be responsible, for better or worse. Clinton didn't do this either, which was what soured his Presidency in my eyes too.

Granted, I don't think Kerry would be a great President either, because it's nearly impossible to fix much of what is going on in the world, but I believe he might allow us to move in the right direction.

The debates are coming soon, and then we'll be able to see where each candidate stands.

Take care all.

[DocFrance]

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I came to the conclusion that prior military experience should not be a judging point for presidential candidacy. Clinton dodged the draft, but he was still a good president. Not one of the best, mind you, but not the worst, either.

Who cares what they did in the past? What matters is what they're going to do now and in the future.

[eestlinc]

Military record is not so important. What is important is Bush's pattern throughout his life of avoiding responsibility and having others do his work for him. Like Republicans have reminded us many times, character really does matter. Unfortunately, Bush has very little. Regardless of politics, Bush has not done very much to deserve re-election.