Kerry understands the war on terror, he's just realistic about it

[Viceroy]

The fact is that terrorism will never be completely eradicated. It is an impossibility. What Kerry says about reducing terrorism to a mere nuisance is not him failing to understand the threat, it is simply being realistic. The best outcome one can hope for in the war against terror is where it's something that exists, but small enough to be largely ignored.

Trust those fuckers at Bush-Cheney Inc to immediately pounce and start crying "How can Kerry lead us when he thinks terrorism is a nuisance". Again twisting his words. Goddamn, if Bush wins this election it will be by the dirtiest way possible.

[lcstinky]

I agree, they'll be humping the crap out of the word "nuisance" until November 2. But there it is: Kerry's realistic about the situation, and he will be punished for it. Bush is in global domination fantasy land. As long as there are severely pissed off groups of people, there will be terrorism.

[noxforumtroll]

"... largely ignored."

Wow, that is incredible. Even John Kerry would eventually agree and then disagree, only to agree later, that this remark is ridiculous. No politician would be foolish enough to say they are hoping to widdle terrorism down to a point where it can be "largely ignored." Bush and Kerry both know that terrorism will be an issue that will not be resolved within the next presidency. It will be an ongoing battle that needs to be waged in an effective and reasonable way. But to say it can be ignored is just ludicrous.

[lcstinky]

Talk about taking something out of context. He said small enough to be largely ignored. That means reducing it to the levels of decades ago, when yes, there was still terrorism, but it was far away, infrequent, and largely ignored.

[noxforumtroll]

In a post-9/11 world, I don't see how politicians could find a way to ignore terrorism. Before 9/11, terrorism had never really affected the US. It seemed largely to be an international issue. Pearl Harbor was the only other attack on American soil by a foriegn enemy that America could compare 9/11 too, but the Japanese were a viable target. Terrorism is something that, once ignore, becomes significantly more dangerous than anyone may realize. For that reason alone, I doubt it would ever be ignored.

[gigatonblast]

The fact is that terrorism will never be completely eradicated. It is an impossibility. What Kerry says about reducing terrorism to a mere nuisance is not him failing to understand the threat, it is simply being realistic. The best outcome one can hope for in the war against terror is where it's something that exists, but small enough to be largely ignored.

Trust those fuckers at Bush-Cheney Inc to immediately pounce and start crying "How can Kerry lead us when he thinks terrorism is a nuisance". Again twisting his words. Goddamn, if Bush wins this election it will be by the dirtiest way possible.
Are YOU ignoring the IRA ? Has the IRA been reduced to just a nuisance ? How would YOU feel if London lost 3000 people in a day ? You were still to young to remember when the IRA was making the news EVERYDAY over on this side of the pond....Look a little closer to home and see what firm resolve can do. Read a few paragraphs by Winston Churchill....And try to let it sink in. You may be suprised at what raw determination can achieve...

[lcstinky]

Wow, Gigaton, that avitar is pretty creepy.

[Asbestos Crayon]

The fact is that terrorism will never be completely eradicated. It is an impossibility. What Kerry says about reducing terrorism to a mere nuisance is not him failing to understand the threat, it is simply being realistic. The best outcome one can hope for in the war against terror is where it's something that exists, but small enough to be largely ignored.

Trust those fuckers at Bush-Cheney Inc to immediately pounce and start crying "How can Kerry lead us when he thinks terrorism is a nuisance". Again twisting his words. Goddamn, if Bush wins this election it will be by the dirtiest way possible.

Not only is this an opinion, its an opinion from Viceroy. Expert at of his local British Pub.

[droogsteve]

Are YOU ignoring the IRA ? Has the IRA been reduced to just a nuisance ?


The IRA has been inactive since the 1998 ceasefire which they agreed to as part of the Good Friday peace accord.

[pidgeball6]

Kerry should be hammered for making a statement about reducing the amount of terrorism so that it's only a nuisance. Not because he thinks it can't be fully eliminated, but because he was stumping all over the country screaming about Bush's statement that a war on terror isn't something that you can outright win. There was a full 2 weeks when the Kerry/Edwards campaign was trying to make Bush seem less than optomistic about the prospects in the war on terror based on that one statement, now in a shocking move, Kerry has said basically the same thing. He should be criticized for no other reason than yet another change of position, because I think most people agree that terrorism, much like naziism, can't be completely irradicated, only reduced to such a level that it doesn't pose a signifigant threat.

[Bartok]

Exactly, Pidge. Kerry and Edwards were heavily criticizing Bush earlier this year when he said in an interview that the war on terror cannot be won. Heck, a reporter asked Kerry if he thought the war on terror could be won soon after Bush said it couldn't, and Kerry's response was, "Absolutely". Edwards criticized him by saying that we shouldn't give up, which is nowhere near what Bush said... what were you saying about twisting words?

Looks like the Kerry campaign has shifted positions on yet another issue. I realize the Bush camp does it, too, but it seems to me that Kerry does it far more often. If Kerry wins.... it will probably also be by the dirtiest means possible.

As I've said before, we're screwed either way.

[poopchow]

You cant ever just say "well only 4 americans died" You can never say something like that.

[Maverick]

Same shit different thread (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=35230).

[krackel]

Exactly, Pidge. Kerry and Edwards were heavily criticizing Bush earlier this year when he said in an interview that the war on terror cannot be won.
go ahead and explain to me how you go about waging war on a mindset or ideology, if you start opening the door to putting terrorist labels on whatever poses a risk to you, then that could make something as simple as what im doing right now, to be considered treasonous terrorist activity.
Remember the commercials that claimed if you smoke weed, youre funding terrorism... :D
You can wage war on alqaeda, but not on terrorism, you can only reduce terrorism.

[Bartok]

go ahead and explain to me how you go about waging war on a mindset or ideology, if you start opening the door to putting terrorist labels on whatever poses a risk to you, then that could make something as simple as what im doing right now, to be considered treasonous terrorist activity.

Right, you can't really wage war on terror, yet BOTH candidates seem to think that you can. Now, both know that it cannot be won.

They should jump all over Kerry for criticizing Bush when he essentially said the same thing earlier, but I've just about decided that this "War on Terror" is just an excuse to terrorize.

[vchampionl70]

However, Kerry's stance is a passive one. Claiming that minimizing it to containable levels will make the world safer is wrong - as you saw, it doesn't take many people to actually carry out an attack that can kill thousands.

When you think of nuisances, you might think of a younger brother, a fly, or a breeze that is flapping your papers about. I would hardly put terrorists in this same category.

[Asbestos Crayon]

The fact is that terrorism will never be completely eradicated. It is an impossibility. What Kerry says about reducing terrorism to a mere nuisance is not him failing to understand the threat, it is simply being realistic. The best outcome one can hope for in the war against terror is where it's something that exists, but small enough to be largely ignored.

Trust those fuckers at Bush-Cheney Inc to immediately pounce and start crying "How can Kerry lead us when he thinks terrorism is a nuisance". Again twisting his words. Goddamn, if Bush wins this election it will be by the dirtiest way possible.

That's your opinion. Just the same as saying Bush knows more.

[BJ and UT5]

However, Kerry's stance is a passive one. Claiming that minimizing it to containable levels will make the world safer is wrong - as you saw, it doesn't take many people to actually carry out an attack that can kill thousands.

I don't think this is true. It didn't take maybe 17 or more people to commandeer the planes and fly them into the said buildings. Before that could occur it took the organized planning of an entire network of terrorists. Not that I disagree with the overall point that we can't just sit back and wait for terrorists to come to us, but your comparison is like saying it only took one person to destroy Hiroshima. Actually I think admitting that there is a network out there coordinating these attacks gives validity to the idea of waging a war on terrorists. Otherwise, what would the point be if one or two people could just go out and kill 3000 people tomorrow.

[Wild_Child]

Kerry obviously can say a lot of things and take every side to every issue… in any event JFK is simultaneously wrong and right at the same time… but when the shit rolls downhill we know that bush has the balls and the ability to act… maybe not in the most intelligent way but never the less he acts… I would rather be led by a man who can act on his toes at the spur of the moment rather than have a man who cowards behind words… bush is an autocratic leader… that’s what he is… Kerry is a country club leader that’s what he is… how you could ever trust Kerry to act is beyond me…

He would push the red button then push the green button and then get some more BOTOX so he would look less afraid!
“He’s a sweater, and women don’t like sweaters,”

[lcstinky]

C'mon, you cheeseballs; this isn't a fucking comic book. You guys act like Bush is the protagonist in some macho fantasy action movie. This is real life, and I don't want some guy who's gonna fly off the handle every time someone pisses him off in charge of the "football."

No you can't kill every terrorist in the world. There's just too many. It makes more sense to address the underlying causes of terrorism, as well as finding and wasting the fuckers. I don't think Kerry would shy away from violence, but he might actually listen to his own war planners.

However, if we reduce the threat to the point where, yes, a couple people die every couple of years, then that would pale in comparison to the threat of, say, school shootings or domestic kidnapping. That's reality.

And the only reason Kerry/Edwards jumped all over Bush for saying you can't win the war on terror was because it was a "flip flop" for Bush.