What if Kerry is elected?

[emprworm]

gas prices will go higher.  right now, gas in the US is cheaper than any place in the world.  Kerry had proposed a 50 cent gas tax hike per gallon.

in addition, terrorists acts against the US will likely go up since security will drop.  Military will be cut, without a doubt, as an appeasement policy goes into place.

Expect more Nurwanda type events in the world-  basically where hundreds of thousands are slaughtered, but with a "do-nothing" clintonite type response.  (passivism)

[SurlyPIG]

Do you mean Rwanda?  Because I think Nurwanda is a city in Indonesia and I don't recall hearing of any slaughters occurring there.  If you do, how, exactly, will the frequency and likelyhood of Rwandan-type incidents have anything to do with who the your president is?

[danielsh]

That's right-wing spin. Kerry proposed that tax hike so, so very long ago, according to CNN. Here's a tip: Take political ads, like any other ad, with a grain of salt. Two grains, if it's a Bush-endorsed commercial.

The Right cannot fight terror. The facts completely and totally contradict that assertion.

Furthermore, since massacres like the ones you're either making up or referring to come as a result of US imperialism more often than not, a more liberal leader would more effectively keep the rest of the world safe.

[Caid Ivik]

Terror can't be fought by politics, to be sure. Elimination of fear is task for every one person: by avoiding giving too much value for life. What's that for a state, if its soldiers fear losses when fightning enemies they were sent against? Politics are irelevant, when the nation is cowardly.

[Wolf]

Dan, why not tell us which exact policies make the war on terror inwinnable, rather than blame it on some generalization; not all right-wingers may agree with those policies, so, your assertion that "the Right cannot fight terror" is flawed. By your logic, all Left-wingers were anti-war on principle, right? Meaning that they would never have voted for the war on Iraq under any circumstances, since it was against their principles? I think the facts prove that otherwise.

Basically, before you undertake actions that alienate individuals, mark you with the trappings of radicalism, and make your job of persuasion that much harder, you should just tell us logically which policies are inefficient in the war on terror and why.

Otherwise, what real difference is there between you and someone you profess to despise, say, Emprworm?

[danielsh]

I apologize; "the Bush administration cannot fight terror" would have been a better way to phrase that. And my belief in this assertion comes from what it supports: Military intervention whenever possible, economic globalization (which is not popular in countries that like their cultures), unilateralism, crass nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and so on ad nauseum.

If terrorism and anti-American feeling come from major problems in various nations---such as fundamentalism, military dictatorships, and poverty---which were originally created by American intervention in their affairs (e.g., the rise of the Taliban, facilitated by the US to continue containment), then the solution is not to keep intervening in their affairs. We cannot send a new army every time some new dictator rises to power; rather, we should try to prevent new dictators from gaining enough support to initially rise. We should befriend our enemies, fund altruistic aid programs, feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and generally take ever positive action necessary to improve the human condition of a nation's people. If we stop giving terrorists reasons to hate the United States, maybe they'll stop hating us.

[Wolf]

Thank you. :)

[otheymzefedaykin]

the question is : Why do them hate you ???

[Wolf]

Why does who hate who?

[Edric O]

It might have something to do with the US being friends with the ruthless tyrants who oppress and murder their friends and families.

Case in point: Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, a country ruled by a demented theocracy who happens to be the USA's best friend and ally...

[Wolf]

Well, there is a reason that the Royal Saudi Air Force flies F-16s... But, doesn't that seem a little wierd? Wouldn't you hate the demented theocracy that directly oppresses you more rather than the federal republic that endorses it?

[Edric O]

Not if there's a good chance that the demented theocracy would fall the day after the federal republic stopped supporting it...

[Wolf]

Do you think that might actually happen? I mean, a demented theocracy is not something I like, and if there was a good chance that it would fall...

Well, if you're right, I don't see why the US keeps supporting it?

[Edric O]

Well, the Saudi "government" (or rather, the gang of thugs that rules Saudi Arabia) is one of the most oppressive governments on Earth, and one of the few that doesn't even bother to hold sham elections. It's an absolutist monarchy - you know, the kind of thing that was in fashion 300 years ago, and the reason why the French invented the guillotine (speaking of which, beheading is a legal punishment in Saudi Arabia). It's no secret that the people of Saudi Arabia almost universally loathe their government, and without American military help a revolution probably wouldn't be very far off.

But there's a catch: Saudi Arabia is the world's no.1 oil producer, which makes it a key ally of the United States. Just like Saddam Hussein was a key ally of the United States, until he commited his greatest crime: disobeying Washington by invading Kuwait.

[TMA_1]

*caugh* propaganda *caugh* lol ;) just kidding :)

[nemafakei]

"Well, there is a reason that the Royal Saudi Air Force flies F-16s... But, doesn't that seem a little wierd?"

The US was out of 747s at the time?

[Wolf]

Was that a 9/11 joke?

[GUNWOUNDS]

until he commited his greatest crime: disobeying Washington by invading Kuwait.

Saddam asked washington if it was ok .. and washington said ...

"we have NO opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait"

then when saddam invades kuwait (because kuwait was undercutting iraqi oil prices and ruining their economy right after iraq finished their war with iran) ... the US discards their previous statement and tears iraq a new butthole.

Saddam didnt disobey anyone .. he was mislead and betrayed.... seems this guy always gets the short end of the stick.

:(

[Wolf]

Was it not the United Nations that asked the United States to be a major player in the Iraqi War? I don't see America's actions in Gulf War one as any preconceived plan to "screw" Saddam.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Was it not the United Nations that asked the United States to be a major player in the Iraqi War? I don't see America's actions in Gulf War one as any preconceived plan to "screw" Saddam.

no but if the US felt strongly enough about the issue that they would have gone to war about it .... then they should have been a bit more frank with Iraq. Also i remember the "haste" with which Congress approved the declaration of war... they didnt debate long.....

but when i said he gets "screwed" i dont mean people are out to get him.... i supported both Iraq wars....what i meant was he just seems to always piss off the wrong people you know.

Personally if i was the dictator of some rag-tag country i would kiss Washington's ass cause i wouldnt wanna get stomped into the ground....

[Wolf]

Well, Gunwounds, there are plenty of nasty dictators who do just that.