Marc Perkel Rantz

Right on point. America will never be the same again after Bush leaves office. Hes already done his damage.HOPEFULLY when Kerry wins, he can clean up the mess the retard Bush made.

To be fair, in response Bush and Cheney decided to attack Afghanistan, where al Quaida had headquarters and training camps. Iraq came later.

Of course, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Sure, you're criticizing Bush for talking about bin Laden "as if he doesn't matter" NOW, but you just KNOW that if bin Laden is caught in October, it's going to be "bin Laden was probably captured half a year ago and this is just part of Bush's re-election plot". ;)

I really have not heard Kerry say what he is going to do about Osama Bin Laden, or terrorism in general. Why will we be so safe with him. Correct me if I am wrong, we got attacked, at least once every two years under the last administration, and all that President did was blow up a aspirin factory in the Sudan the night before he went before a grand jury.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/

Instead of saying, "I haven't heard him say anything...", why don't you turn a blind eye to what he has said for about 4 months now. I really hate that neo-con defense saying that, but what really is his stance on this or that. WHEN HE OUTLINES EXACTLY WHAT HIS PLANS ARE, AND HAS THEM POSTED ON HIS WEBSITE. It is not that he hasn't said what his plan is, it is that you have chosen not to listen to it.

I do not know anyone that wouldn't say that bush is botching the war on terrorism. We can get back into this, but Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. Also, don't bring up the past, we don't bring up the first bush everytime arguing about something, or even worse, Reagan.

From Kerry's website ... "Through two World Wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War and Kosovo, America led instead of going it alone. We respected the world - and the world respected us."

The world respected us because we were saving their asses. They ALWAYS love us when we are saving their asses. This time it is us who were attacked, and we are defending ourselves, that is why they do not support us.

My question is still the same. What has John Kerry said about Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. Wills, I read your links. Kerry does not mention Osama Bin Laden's name at all. He goes on to VAGUELY say that he will strengthen security. I did not read any specifics as to how he is going to strengthen homeland security.

Don't bring up the past? Why? Does the truth hurt? You cannot hide from your past. Bring up any President you want. The wrong war at the wrong time? Sure, I'll give you that. Old Man Bush should have taken him out. But some stupid rule that we do not take heads of state. Clinton should have taken him out the first time that he skirted away from the conditions of his surrender. Wrong war, wrong time? Yes, it is a war whose time has passed. Bush II should not be taking care of others unfinished business, but somehow that becomes the responsibility of the current President. You are not used to that because the current President of past did not do it.

John Kerry has no plan.

Technically speaking, USA didn't lead the world in the world wars. Your country entered in a lot later and ended the stalemates.

Ok Tom, you're right, bush has a much better plan. What is that by the way? He knows what to do about al Queda and OBL. When, by the way, did he mention either of those two during the RNC? Clinton never put Saddam back in his place during his administration. What did Saddam do during those times and now?

Oh and you're right, we are always bailing everyone out during their wars. Wow, we won the Revolutionary War without the help of France, that is news to me. I guess entering a war after the heavy casualties have been sustained is saving someone's ass. I guess fighting the Korean's and Vietnamese was saving their asses.

Wow, thank you for making me realize I was wrong all along, and that it is actually me who misread the history books.

M.Wills is right. Saddam was beaten down. You can't put blame on Clinton because Bush Sr was the one who failed to finish up whatever business USA had with Iraq because USA had some strange business with the middle east area in the 70s and 80s. Also your current president also has been quoted to say he wouldn't mind a dictatorship as long as he's the dictator. Does that not strike you as odd and hypocritial? Also he is quoted as saying as President, he does not have to answer to the people of the USA. I may be a foreigner but I think that is wrong as well. In fact one of your earlier presidents said that as President you MUST answer to the people. President of USA is a public job to serve the people of the USA, not himself. If Bush really wanted Saddam so bad, he should've gotten bin Laden first before going after anyone else. Jumping from target to target just makes USA look worse. Also, if Bush had just waited, countries like Canada had a plan to put a set date for Iraq to comply with everything the UN said and what the USA asked for 100% and if it wasn't followed in the set frame then the war would've have had UN backing and American soldiers alone would not have bourne the death rate they now suffer over there. Bush decided to go on ahead and basically ignore the UN. Was it nice, as an American to see your President crawl back to the UN to beg for help to clean up his mistake which good honest Americans have paid and died for? Going to war without a proper plan to pull out was very stupid and your soldiers are not tools to be used on whim. They are people too. Bush needs to realize that.

Citizen Kain, F*ck the UN! It is now just a bunch a dictators from third world rogue nations and the pussy from France, who just happened to have Billions in dealings with Saddam. The first time that Saddam toyed with the conditions of the cease fire he should have been taken out. The UN is a bunch of coddlers.

Wills, in Korea and Nam we were fighting the forces of Communism. It was an extension of the cold war. I kind of agree with your thoughts on helping other countries. We have no business helping anyone. You cannot deliver freedom, it must be obtained. If Iraqis do not want to die to obtain freedom, we cannot give it to them. The Middle East is not ready for Democracy. But, when the dictatorship flourishes to your back door, where do you go? Saddam the dictator has more support than Bush the dictator. We should close our borders. Build a star wars defense system (that is what the Constitution allows for "Defense") and let the rest of the world defend themselves. Bring EVERY soldier home. We were never a better nation than when we produced for ourselves, by ourselves. Our troops, all over the world cost us MOST of our tax dollars.

Do you think that it was wrong to fight the Revolutionary war?

Do you not believe that we saved Europe from Hitler? If we would have taken out Hitler prior to his invading a free Europe some 1939 Wills style liberal kid would have been screaming "Hitler didn't do anything."

Thank you again for making me realize that saying, "We didn't win the Revolutionary war alone" actually means, "It was wrong to fight it." Also that the people who helped us out during that time were, "puss(ies)". That being said, I would also obviously say, "Hitler didn't do anything". Don't ever say that about me, I take extreme offense to that comment, as both my grandfathers served in WWII.

Yah, I think we should practice isolationism, where did I say that again? I thought the most effective way that we fought communism was the Marshall plan, but hey, I guess fighting wars where we accomplished nothing but stalemate was also effective.

I thank you Tom, your words of wisdom never stop amazing me. Seriously if more people had the blindingly awesome power of belligerent nationalism that you have, the US would be a much better place...

"I guess fighting wars where we accomplished nothing but stalemate was also effective. "

Uh, it was really really effective. If the UN (not just the US, but the UN) hadn't sent troops into South Korea, then the DPRK would be about twice as large and there'd be a lot more people living under the opressive jackboot of Kim Jong-il.

Also, while the Vietnam conflict was a complete political failure (and, as an extension of the political failure, a military failure), it did succeed in our ultimate goal of stopping Communism. The Vietnam War sent a pretty strong message to any other country that might have wanted to turn Communist after that time--the US is going to intervene, and our pockets are a whole lot deeper than yours. The prospect of a 10 year war with the United States was a horrible one for any third-world country, and was a reasonably strong deterrent.

Also, I'd like to back KainNero's comment (based on past comments, this might be the only time to our diametrically opposed views) concerning Kerry's claim that we led the world into past wars. WWI was us going in and batting cleanup because Europe had succeeded in little more than completely destroying their countryside and wasting thousands of lives. WWII was us intervening to (A)help stop Hitler and (B)satisfy vengeance for the American people against Japan. As any history student can attest, we didn't enter the war until early '42, three years after the start.

We led the war in Kosovo because France didn't build a multi-million dollar defense system for Milosevic and Jacques Chirac didn't make visits to Kosovo.

Fun Fact: The middle-tech Iraq defense network was called Kari, and was built for them by the French. Kari is Irak, the French name for that country, spelled backwards.

Mance:

Ah! It's a good thing you clarified in a logical and proper manner. Kerry's site should then be as specific as that to make sure for no such misinterpretation. That fun fact was interesting.