What is the real question in this election?

[sam h]

Here is very simple question: Assign a percentage value reflecting the probability that there will be a major terrorist attack on the United States in the next four years if Kerry wins and call it K. Now do the same for Bush and call it B.

What is K-B?

IMO, it must be pretty close to 0. Which is why the major question in the campaign should not be "who will keep us safer" but instead "what will each candidate do when the next attack comes."

That's what I want to know. I wish somebody would ask the two of them this next Thursday: "A small nuclear weapon is detonated in a major US city next year, killing 50,000 people. Intelligence sources point to Al-Qaeda, but you have no firm idea where they got the weapon. What do you do? Close the borders? Attack Iran? Pass a stronger Patriot act? Institute a draft? Please discuss each of these possible responses in turn as well as others that may come to mind."

I would like to see both of these men try to field that question.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
What is K-B?


[/ QUOTE ]

Closer to infinity than to zero. IMHO

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Why?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the terrorists will test the new kid on the block, particularly since all his rhetoric indicates that he would seek permission from the UN prior to taking any steps to defend our country.

Andy, have you listened to this guy in the past week? If so I am now pretty sure your question was rhetorical.

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

What kool-aid were you drinking when you thought you heard someone say that they heard Kerry say he would ask permission before defending the country?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
What kool-aid were you drinking when you thought you heard someone say that they heard Kerry say he would ask permission before defending the country?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I heard him make that statement. Where have you been? In a coma?

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

WOW! Some Kool-Aid. Now you are having auditory hallucinations and thinking that Kerry is speaking to you.

Was Kerry in the form of a Dog? I think the Son of Sam heard the same voices.

[andyfox]

You really think the terrorists consider what Kerry or Bush says? There was no doubt that the Bush administration was filled with tough hombres (Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) who had long been calling for a more assertive American foreign policy. So why did they not call off 9/11?

If they did think about it at all, they'd have to consider that Kerry, with his reputation for being softer, would have to go out of his way to actually be tough. Remember, it was the liberal Kennedy and Johnson administrations, sensitive to soft-on-Communism and the-party-that-lost-China criticism, that drew the line in the sand in Vietnam.

I just don't think O.B.L. or the decapitators will base their decisions on whether we elect Bush or Kerry.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is very simple question: Assign a percentage value reflecting the probability that there will be a major terrorist attack on the United States in the next four years if Kerry wins and call it K. Now do the same for Bush and call it B.

What is K-B?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to consider that hardly anybody thinks this way.

[Jimbo]

You are a spoiled child with no ability to discern fact from fiction. For this I forgive you and blame your parents. But for also being a rude idiot you have only yourself to blame and deserve no forgiveness only help.

[ QUOTE ]
"He supports a volunteer Army, 'if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however.' Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. 'I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.'


[/ QUOTE ]

Idiot Kerry Speaks (http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=352185)

[ QUOTE ]
As Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero says: "Never has the dilution of U.S. Sovereignty been so boldly forecast." This is a man who said that the United States should not deploy troops overseas without the "permission" of the United Nations. He made no exceptions. He stated it as a hard and fast rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many more quotes and witnesses are available if you are not too busy acting stupid and are willing to do the research yourself.

Jimbo

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to consider that hardly anybody thinks this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. That's why the Bush message is all about scaring people into thinking that they'll get bombed if they vote for Kerry. It's obviously very effective.

But it doesn't mean the issue of how we respond to another attack shouldn't be the real question in the election.

[Jimbo]

Andy as mcuh as I respect you sometimes you write the dumbest things.

ie:
[ QUOTE ]
If they did think about it at all, they'd have to consider that Kerry, with his reputation for being softer, would have to go out of his way to actually be tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could possibly make you believe that Kerry will ever be anything else than a wishy washy scared liberal? He has not said anything to help me believe he will do anything except appease our enemies, the United Nations and his cronies.


As to: [ QUOTE ]
So why did they not call off 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]

They had planned this for several years and likely expected some form of retaliation. They underestimated our strong President and are paying the price. If Kerry is elected it will be "Get out of jail free" day for the terrorists. I for one do not want them to have Carte Blanche while we wait for UN permission to protect ourselves.

Jimbo

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think O.B.L. or the decapitators will base their decisions on whether we elect Bush or Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So any variation between Bush and Kerry regarding preventing an attack will have to come from their actions on things such as homeland security, intelligence reform, and nuclear proliferation. There is no real difference in their positions on the first two. Kerry has shown a willingness to stress the third which Bush has not, but who knows what he will do in office once he actually has to deal with the problems.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
But it doesn't mean the issue of how we respond to another attack shouldn't be the real question in the election.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this how can you even consider Kerry a viable Presidential candidate?

Jimbo

[adios]

FWIW I think the way Kerry's conducted his campaign and the way he's conducted himself during this campaign provides a good basis for making a probability assessment on how he'll handle Iraq and the terrorist menace in general.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I think the way Kerry's conducted his campaign and the way he's conducted himself during this campaign provides a good basis for making a probability assessment on how he'll handle Iraq and the terrorist menace in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though campaigning and fighting terror aren't the same exactly the same skill set, I will have to agree with this one.

[andyfox]

At the risk of writing something dumb: You really think the Al Qaeda leaders will sit down and decide that since Kerry is a wishy-washy scared liberal, let's go ahead and do some more damage in the United States? Do you think they have the vaguest idea of how American politics work? Or isn't it more likely they see all American politicians as different spokes in the wheel of the great Satan? Again, if they know anything about recent American history, they'll know that the liberals were the more aggressive foreign policy hawks. If they read better than you, they'll see that Kerry has said that the war in Iraq has taken focus away from the war against Al Qaeda, which is where he (Kerry) will concentrate his efforts.

I can't imagine Al Qaeda thought Bush or any American president would not retaliate for 9/11. Especially since they intended to crash one plane into either the Pentagon or the White House or the U.S. Capitol. What they probably didn't realize is that he would lose focus half-way through the job and not concentrate on getting Bin laden and Mullah Omar and his henchmen and finishing the job at hand in Afghanistan.

[andyfox]

Kerry said this in 1970. In 2000, Bush said he's against nation-building, it doesn't work. Shouldn't we be more concerned with what they say in 2004?

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is K-B?


[/ QUOTE ]

Closer to infinity than to zero. IMHO

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]


Since it's not possible that K-B > 100, this is definitely wrong. (Then again, only an idiot would think it was even 100.)

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

Closer to infinity than to zero. IMHO

[/ QUOTE ]

umm it's bounded by 1 and -1.

[cardcounter0]

The quotes you refer to are talking about invading the Sovereignty of other nations, and stationing troops in other nations. What does this have to do with defending the HomeLand?

Your original stupor-speak was that Kerry would want UN permission to defend the United States. I haven't seen the quote where if the United States were invaded or attacked, he would require UN permission to defend the country.

Stationing troops overseas for peacekeeping missions among other nations, or violating Sovereignty of other nations while not under direct attack, should require the permission of the UN. Without that, we are back to the might-makes-right laws of the jungle.

So where is the quote about needing permission to defend our Sovereignty, or our response to a direct attack?

Keep drinking the kool-aid, maybe Kerry will appear out of the fog and speak to you again.

[MMMMMM]

"Stationing troops overseas for peacekeeping missions among other nations, or violating Sovereignty of other nations while not under direct attack, should require the permission of the UN. Without that, we are back to the might-makes-right laws of the jungle."

What you fail to understand is that the United Nations IS the jungle, and most of its member countries are poisonous snakes.

[Jimbo]

What part of

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

is it that you do not understand?

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think the Al Qaeda leaders will sit down and decide that since Kerry is a wishy-washy scared liberal, let's go ahead and do some more damage in the United States?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just how likely must this be before it is too dangerous to take the chance? A lot, a little, a teeny weeny bit likely? Perhaps California would be the next target. Does that make you reconsider?


Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

What part of defending the country (ie. American people in America on American soil) and sending troops all over the globe on peace keeping missions don't you understand?

Let the kool-aid wear off, maybe you will be able to see the difference between the two when you come to your senses.

[Jimbo]

I know you are caught up in your own little world and are not accustomed to admitting when you have made a mistake but take a dose of reality and get a true grasp of the situation.

1. We have Americans living all over the world.
2. Defending America is more than the 50 States.
3. If the UN controlled our troops what makes you think they would allow them to defend us at all?
4. Kerry said nothing about peace keeping missions. That was another idiot, you.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Kerry's criticized Bush's homeland security measure and vows to make it better and tougher. Does that make you reconsider? The premise that terrorists, who are called terrorists because they deal in terror, that is, not in conventional military tactics, will decide what to do based on who is president, strains credulity. When I asked you why they didn't call off 9/11, you said one reason was they underestimated President Bush. Their understanding of American politics is deficient.

If I felt President Bush would keep me safer than Senator Kerry, I'd vote for him. I think his policy in Iraq is misguided and we're less safe because of it.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's criticized Bush's homeland security measure and vows to make it better and tougher. Does that make you reconsider?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I could believe him, yes it would. However I believe if you were to substitute the words less efficient and more expensive for "better and tougher" in your quote above you would be describing what Kerry would really accomplish.

[ QUOTE ]
Their understanding of American politics is deficient.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree in principle Andy. I disagree in the amount of understanding they require in order to cause us great damage.

[ QUOTE ]
If I felt President Bush would keep me safer than Senator Kerry, I'd vote for him. I think his policy in Iraq is misguided and we're less safe because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is likely why President Bush will not get 100% of the vote come November. Fortunately a majority of people do not feel this way.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

No doubt more people feel Bush is the better man to prosecute both the war in Iraq and the general war on terrorism.

A terroristic attack is, by definition, a kind of stealth attack. Who is president has nothing to do with planning to use box cutters to take over an airplane. If we were waging a more conventional war, I'd agree that the opponents' perception of what kind of administration the prospective president will preside over would have an effect on their strategy and tactics. Not so with terrorists.