Bush says US can't win War on Terror

[Jenks]

you should check this book out DaveTlv...

"Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of the Mossad" - by Gordon Thomas

[neur0t0xin64]

delirious your comments are pathetic. im outraged. its pitilus theocrats like you and john edwards that take a sentence or a comment and michael moore the shit out of it! what?? are you suggesting that now bush is giving up hope? because of one line from a paragraph where he goes on to to say..."Can we win?" Mr. Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." you can see the article here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/politics/main639576.shtml

this is pure michael moorish copy & paste propaganda, and democrats like john edwards who leech these statements, corrode and embellish them, then recirculate them in their firey ra ra chants are dispicable.

[toasty]

this is pure michael moorish copy & paste propaganda

Does anyone else detect a hint of irony in neuro accusing someone else of "copy and paste propaganda?" Quoting from another of his posts this evening:

kerry has said numerous times that he would treat the conflict more delicately, he would combat terrorism more sensitively!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nsitivewarplea

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3590

It is pretty clear to anyone that heard the entire statement that it was taken out of context. Isn't this the same "copy and paste propaganda" that he's talking about? Hey, neuro, surely you're aware that Bush has also referred to the need to be "sensitive" when dealing with such issues, right? Is that different, somehow?

A man who has literally copied and pasted the talking points from the Bush website on here in support of his position ( http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/...0&start=20 ) is accusing someone else of "copy and paste propaganda" -- the hypocrisy is staggering.

[neur0t0xin64]

toasty im beginning to think there is no hope for you. your puppeted by the liberal media and reject anything otherwise. your attacks on me for outlining to you what the BUSH AGENDA on the labor reform issue truly says (since you did such a magnificent job of misleading and boldly lying to the readers here on MS) are unjustified. your not even making a point here which is what 99% of your posts have become. you lose credibility with every stroke of your engageing little index finger. you and your liberal friends are clearly in a frenzy. your all over the place toasty...all out of sorts with your self and reality. stop spinning your wheels with all your rhetoric. the only irony here is that your comments, after digested, taste like blackened burnt toast...toasty.

[LV-8]

I keep hearing this shit about "Oh I def. think Kerry would do a better job on terrorism".

I'm just curious as to why and how you think Kerry / Edwards would be more effective on terrorism. Do you know something we don't???

This clown in 19 years has done absolutley nothing for his state, NOTHING. What amkes people think he'll do something for the entire U.S.

You ask any of these Kerry voters why they'll vote for Kerry, their answers are usually b/c he'll be better than Bush. Ok. THEN TELL US HOW!!!!

It's really sad that people ar actually going to vote for someone they have no idea about or confidence in just b/c they simply hate the other party.

[toasty]

your attacks on me for outlining to you what the BUSH AGENDA on the labor reform issue truly says (since you did such a magnificent job of misleading and boldly lying to the readers here on MS) are unjustified.

Tell you what -- go back to that thread and show everyone how I misled and lied about overtime reform. As I recall, you never responded to my last post. Here's the link, for your convenience:

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3290&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

your not even making a point here which is what 99% of your posts have become.

My intent right now is not to sit here and mindlessly argue ideology with you, if that is the "point" you're looking for -- you and I have different takes on the way the world should be run, and I respect that. What I will critique is your methodology and inconsistencies in the positions you take, and your recent inability to do much more than parrot GOP sound bites. This is a discussion board -- let's "discuss." That, my friend, is the "point."

[toasty]

Re:: Bush says US CAN win War on Terror

Well, here's an interesting development...

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush

Looks like we'll have more to talk about after Bush's speech.

[delirious]

Re:: Bush says US CAN win War on Terror

Well, here's an interesting development...

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush

Looks like we'll have more to talk about after Bush's speech.

He's trying to break the Guiness World Record for "most flops in a week"

[toasty]

I keep hearing this shit about "Oh I def. think Kerry would do a better job on terrorism".

I'm just curious as to why and how you think Kerry / Edwards would be more effective on terrorism. Do you know something we don't???

This clown in 19 years has done absolutley nothing for his state, NOTHING. What amkes people think he'll do something for the entire U.S.

You ask any of these Kerry voters why they'll vote for Kerry, their answers are usually b/c he'll be better than Bush. Ok. THEN TELL US HOW!!!!

I don't necessarily think that Kerry will do a better job on terrorism, but I don't think he will do worse, either. I don't think the election will have a major impact on this, personally. To the extent that Kerry does bring something new to the table that Bush does not, it is simply the fact that he is not Bush. Bush has burnt a lot of bridges with our allies and people in his adminstration have helped up the level of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. Bush can't undo that without backtracking, which we know he will not do (and I don't mean to suggest that he necessarily should), but Kerry (or anyone new) would have a relatively clean slate to rebuild alliances and put some distance between the US and Abu Grahib (sp?) without losing face. I can't see how that could be a bad thing.

It's really sad that people ar actually going to vote for someone they have no idea about or confidence in just b/c they simply hate the other party.

I don't hate the republicans. I hate the fact that they have chosen W, who is not a republican as far as I can tell, as their leader.

[neur0t0xin64]

Re:: Bush says US can't win War on Terror

well at least you cant accuse him of lying. any moron with a quater of a brain knows that terrorism will be around for ever and we need to keep fighting. we need to keep doing this to these guys

[superdave]

Re:: Bush says US can't win War on Terror

I think the liberal media and other liberals on this board throw stones, but don't have any real answers themselves. Imo, Bush was being honest on terror. There has been and always will be terrorists. But, we can do things to disrupt their operations and capture or kill them before they commit their acts.

What's makes me laugh is how Democrats think that they or Kerry/Edwards would be tougher than Bush and the Repbulicans on terror. I'm willing to bet Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are hoping Kerry wins the election.

[neur0t0xin64]

Look, toasty im too tired right now to address your previous challenge to continue our previous discussion, havent even had a chance to look at it. And I know I have referenced this article in other threads...BUT WILL EVERYONE ONCE AND FOR ALL READ THIS PLEASE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND TELL ME IF THIS IS WHO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF?

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

Please take special notice towards the end where Kerrys aid tells the Associated Press (and actually had(or possibly still has) this posted on Kerrys website) saying that Kerry was the Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Committe for 7 out of his 8 years on the committee. After researched it was found that the Vice Chairman was actually a former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. When questioned about this the Kerry aid responded "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey -- similar names." hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Im outraged and every American should be too!

[toasty]

Im outraged

Dude, you say this a lot. Either lay off of the coffee, or if that doesn't calm you down, at least consider using the link below:

https://www.thesaurus.com

Thanks

[delirious]

Jenks:

I agree with your point of view on terrorism. It's NOT a "black or white" issue.Bush has alienated the rest of the world with his policies (withdrawing from Kyoto, from chemical weapons treaties, saying the Geneva convension was invalid)....etc etc etc.

Even your French and German friends (which have troops risking their lives in Afganhistan) have been attacked by your administration for their own points of view and their decision not the invade Iraq under false pretenses. I still hear conservatives ripping the French - do they think it's "cool" to rip off your allies during a war?

Many other countries including New Zealand, Russia, China, Belarus, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Serbia, The Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Finland, the Vatican City, Canada, United Arab Emirates and South Africa were also against US action.

In fact, during the build-up to war in Iraq, the rest of the worlds opinion regarding a US invasion without UN approval was scarsely more than 10% at any time. Now most Americans think the war was a mistake.
Even if Kerry and Edwards JUST RENEWED U.S FRIENDSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, the war on terrorism would be INFINITELY easier to win. The US needs intelligence from all the allies it can get. How do you expect countries to fully participate in the war on terrorism when their people and leaders suspect US motives?

These are things Kerry/Edwards can do and things the Bush administration have proven they can't.

[delirious]

Freedom-fighters?

I can never tell delirious, you being serious here?

If you don't know then you shouldn't be implying I think terrorists are freedom fighters. Think before you rant. :wink:

So try and explain something to me then delirious, how would you approach the war on terror? You obviously think that fighting 'it' with military force is the wrong way to go about it, so what would you do?

Show me where I said fighting it was wrong. I've already specifically condoned blowing terrorists up.

I'd fight the war on terror by making it highly unlikely that anyone would ever want to attack the US, as impossible as it sounds. I believe that the US has the strength and character to do it... do you?