I think I like Kerry's approach of treating terrorism like law enforcement

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

I mean this "war on terrorism" stuff if just made up by Bush to scare people.

What we need to do is go after-one by one- the criminals behind 9/11 and put them away for good.

Maybe even have a tribunal at the Hauge.

Otherwise you'll get this cowboy dropping bombs on innocent people in the name of "the war on terrorism".

I'm sure a few joint CIA/FBI raids in foreign lands will round these guys up with minimum casualties and collateral damage.

[killbotfactory]

1. If your neighborhood was bombed by Ashcroft because he "suspected"

A terrorist group was there, would you stand for it? HELL NO. Why the hell would Iraqi's?

Treating terrorism as a stircly military operation is just insane.

NO MORE BUSH

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

4. That is what Bush is doing

Clinton did it the right way and caught the perpetrators of the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

[killbotfactory]

13. And he didn't have to invade a country totally unrelated to the conflict!

Amazing!

With all the bitching and moaning about Ruby Ridge and Waco freepers do, you think they would appreaciate Iraqi's not wanting to have their neighborhoods decimated by bombs because their neighbors are suspected of being insurgents.

[LibDemAlways]

34. Well the good little whores on CNN

tonight said that the US takes great pain to avoid "harming" civilians - like 1000lb. bombs know the difference.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. Really?

That's great.

(Why are people with so few posts always coming out with the weirdest threads? It's like they have an "average wacko Commie-leftist" stereotyped and come here spouting off what they THINK we'd post.)

[trotsky]

6. I know, isn't it odd?

I mean I so totally agree with the OP, there is no need to go after terrorists, we should just lay back and let them attack us first. That is completely the way all us leftist loonie wackos think, isn't it?

[Union Thug]

21. disagree completely...

It's a valid point. Nobody said anyone should stand aside and let 'the TERRRASSSTTTSS" run amok, they said that there is an alternative to the destruction and risks of war. If that's the viewpoint of a "commie", fine, I'm a commie.

[trotsky]

26. Look, the way the OP stated it...

it's straight outta the Bush talking point book.

He's stringing us along, trying to get us REAL liberals to agree with the most wacked out stereotypical liberal views. Then he runs back to FR or wherever he's from, points to the link and says, "Look, they REALLY DO think that way! Ha ha ha!"

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

27. Huh?

Please elaborate.

I am not looking for a fight or flame.

I agree with Kerry's approach.

[trotsky]

32. It's part of the standard Bush stump speech.

They claim that Kerry only wants to treat terrorism in a break-fix mode - to passively allow the country to be attacked, and THEN respond. It plays well with the base, they hope it's working to pull over the independents.

Problem is, that's NOT Kerry's position. Like pretty much everything else Bush claims.

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

33. Of course that's not

Like Clinton he will have agents and officers all over the world tracking terrorists down.

Just not soldiers or tanks.

[Sparkly]

35. "Just not soldiers or tanks"

Riiiiiight. Kerry doesn't like soldiers or tanks, huh? :eyes:

[Union Thug]

37. Whether or not it's part of a stump speech

doesn't matter to me. It's a valid point. Is war the answer to terrorism? I don't think so. Attrition does nothing in this situation except give rise to more terrorists.

A law enforcement approach puts the responsibility on the guilty parties without all that messy collateral damage, destroyed infrastructure, or having to figure out how to get an "idea", as opposed to an opposing state, to surrender. Further, war distracts us from the fact that the roots of terrorism have nothing to do with hating freedom or hating home ownership, and without that consideration, we are bound to condemn ourselves to the great orwellian everlasting war.

[trotsky]

40. And you'll note, I never said I thought war was the answer either.

But you put a lot more reasoning behind the position than the OP did, and let's face it - more often than not, new posters coming in and spouting off stereotypical, almost satirical, liberal views are disruptors.

[blondeatlast]

41. Democrat Since Birth has the right idea;

he's going to kick this post everytime he spots one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1225881

[Union Thug]

3. I completely agree. The human cost of war is too great.

Dead babies, children, women and men, bombed out wedding parties, dead canadians hit by 'friendly' fire, and countless thousands of civilians dead in Iraq... It's not worth the human cost (not to mentions the diplomatic and economic costs).


On edit: AND, it ignores and distracts us from finding ways to deal with the roots of terrorism. This aint about "hating us for our freedom.." (unless you're a half-wit bushbot)

[RC]

5. It worked for Bill Clinton.

The New Years sure was quiet when 2000 got here.

[killbotfactory]

7. Nah, it's better to ignore the problem until somethine awful happens

then totally overreact militarily against some unrelated country, claim it changed everything, then exploit the tragedy for political gain.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I'd Feed Him But He's Probably Been Force Fed A Time Or Two!

nt

[Ducks In A Row]

9. When I hear the rethugs say it shouldn't be a law enforcement matter

I always wonder why not.

[RetroLounge]

11. WTF?

:wtf:

RL

[gulliver]

12. That's only one element. Bush spends $225 billion for nothing.

Kerry just wants to do things that actually work.

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

14. Exactly

And this approach will bring the real criminals to justice.

[sandnsea]

15. I like the Bush approach of ignoring them

and pretending non-terrorists are terrorists and the people we went to free are now the terrorists we're killing. That's a fun plan!!

[killbotfactory]

16. And then to make sure dangerous weapons don't get into their hands...

We'll leave weapon dumps full of dangerous weapons unguarded for anybody to loot!

Brilliant!

[sandnsea]

18. Slaps head

How could I forget that part of the plan. sheesh, it was the most brilliant part!!!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Thank You...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Thug]

28. I don't know who you are, or what your motivations are

But hell, regardless of where you are coming from, there's been nothing inappropriate about what you posted. So whether you secretly support the Bushbot or are just another 'commie' as someone said earlier, so long as you're not attacking anyone, flaming or otherwise being a bother, I'm going to defend your right to post.

But, I cannot defend bothering moderators with this petty crap. If it were me, I'd leave the mods out of this until someone is clearly out of line.

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

30. Thanks for the advice friend

I just want honest discussion on Kerry's excellent (IMHO) position on this faux "war".

[harpo]

22. Anyone's approach is better than chimps

freggin freepers

[Union Thug]

23. Troll or not...there's been no rude, hateful or otherwise obnoxious

posts here.

Frankly, alerting the mods to the horrors of this particular discussion seems, at least in my opinion, a little paranoid and a waste of their time. But then again, I'm a commie, what do I know?

Again, this is a valid topic, noboby is behaving innapropriately. Let the discussion continue.

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

25. Thank you friend

Some people are so paranoid.

They won't debate the issue.

Well I hope this doesn't get locked.

I feel it's valid, whether I eventually get kicked off or not.

[Union Thug]

31. No thanks necessary. =) I just get fed up when people

go nuts because an opinion rubs them the wrong way. This is a discussion forum, so let's discuss...not start labeling people to avoid an issue (or whatever this was about).

[Cocoa]

42. alerting the mods is not a waste of time

it only takes a couple of seconds, and it's better than doing it publicly.

[Sparkly]

29. As General Clark said,

"I'm not attacking George W. Bush for attacking the terrorists, I'm attacking George W. Bush for NOT attacking the terrorists."

Nobody said the "war on terrorism" was "stuff just made up."
Nobody said this would be fought solely by law enforcement or intel agencies.
Nobody said going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including with bombs, was "cowboy"-ish.

The issue is that the "war on terror" has been botched miserably by this adminstration, their zeal to go into Iraq has created a worse mess and greater dangers.

It's obvious you think you're clever, but that figures.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Clinton Never Said To Treat Terorism As A Law Enforcement Problem...

That's A Pug talking point...


I hate freepers as much as I hate terrorists .... The only difference is that the terrorists have access to weapons...

[Sparkly]

38. Exactly -- a familiar rightwing parrot-point

The truth gets in the way of their scripts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Sad Thing Is Some Well Intentioned DUers Fell For It..

They want you to believe that Gore or Clinton wouldn't have responded to 9-11...

[whosinpower]

43. You mean you are just waking up to the notion

That Bush pulled a classic bait and switch???

I would agree that there are some areas that the military would be more efficient - and it did not really bother me that the US invaded Afghanistan...it was the correct course of action - but the rest of the world fights in the war on terror with its intelligence and policing forces working together.

That combined with a reformed foreign policy are the only way to take the bite out of Osama's mouth.

[blm]

44. HORSESHIT. You misstated Kerry's position. He'd use special forces FIRST

to capture and kill Bin Laden and his forces and THEN contain the terrorism with special trained law enforcemnet BACKED by military special forces.

WHY would you DELIBERATELY misstate Kerry's position today?

[moondust]

45. Sooner or later

you run out of military targets. Then you're down to guys with box cutters and backpacks full of explosives in 60 different countries. At that point it's all intelligence and police work. Madrid is a good example.

Bush and Cheney want it to be all about WAR which just shows they're lost when it comes to dealing with the reality of terrorism.