the Dems plan for defeating terrorism

yeah? well what's the republicans plan?

If we bring home the troops, Iran will work in collaboration with Iraq, build a nuclear weapon, and then we will have some extremist, USA-hating Muslim with his finger on the trigger of a nuke aimed for Israel or maybe even America. It will make the cold war look like a birthday party.

Would you rather a few thousand willing soldiers die at war, or MILLIONS DIE WHEN WE ARE NUKED??

no no. like the believer said, no bashing. again, what's the republicans's plan.

is to let the repubs handle it. the repubs are doing a superb job. just look at iraq, palestine, afghanistan, and how the terrorists are shrinking in numbers, attacks are dwindling, deaths are lowering. peace is finally coming to the middle east after centuries of strife. we can thank carl rove and dick cheney, the great white saviors of arabia.

fdgfghh wrote:

If we bring home the troops, Iran will work in collaboration with Iraq, build a nuclear weapon, and then we will have some extremist, USA-hating Muslim with his finger on the trigger of a nuke aimed for Israel or maybe even America. It will make the cold war look like a birthday party.

Would you rather a few thousand willing soldiers die at war, or MILLIONS DIE WHEN WE ARE NUKED??

Prove it. Don't forget to cite your sources. Adequate sources include verified internal Pentagon memos (or such documents from other nation's intelligence agencies), internal memos from the above states detailing these plans, valid, non-rhetorical statements from leaders of these countries, any historical evidence that Iran and Iraq are fond of each other, any current evidence that Iran and Iraq are fond of each other.

Wow, this post got shut down in two seconds. It's amazing when people start asking for proof or a solution instead of "the usual."

Impressive.

LOL i'm pretty sure there are current events linking Iran and Iraq, let alone "internal evidence" as you have mentioned.

But that's not the point: You want evidence? 9/11... Even the dems have been saying Iran is building nuclear weapons for awhile now (right up until Bush's presidency began).

Was it a week ago, when a leader of Iran proclaimed their nuclear program had reached a milestone? it's no mystery.

Vast conspiracy, you say?? How could you be so naive to mistrust our leaders... Alright, I'll admit Bush has made some stupid blunders, but these people were elected by us, and in general, are very good at their jobs, and would not just blatantly lie to the American public.

Besides, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry. And by sorry, I mean a major US city being nuked?

A state-sponsored nuke from Iran is going to blow up a major city. Tell me, how is it going to do that? How is it going to get here?? And, if that is the case, how is Bush going to stop that?

The only nuclear bomb that'll come close to us over here from the Mideast will be coming from terrorists, and it will be a bomb of small magnitude. And us leaving Iraq will have nothing to do with that.

the only state terrorist to use the bomb on humans is the u.s. god is burning truman on the cross in hell forever for all eternity for the worst crimes against humanity in the entire history of mankind. the u.s. has no leg to stand on when it criticizes iran yet allows israel to continue apartheid, occupation, rape, and genocide against it\'s very own semitic people in occupied palestine.

state terrorism wrote:

the u.s. has no leg to stand on when it criticizes iran yet allows israel to continue apartheid, occupation, rape, and genocide against it's very own semitic people in occupied palestine.

any examples of genocide or rape?

can you elaborate as to what you mean by apartheid and occupation?

Or do you just enjoy throwing around inflammatory rhetoric?

cnn.com

jff wrote:

Tell me, how is it going to do that? How is it going to get here?? And, if that is the case, how is Bush going to stop that?

I don't get it.. are these rhetorical questions? Or do you really not know how a nuclear bomb could get from one place to another? Or how a terrorist organization can quickly overtake a weak government? Or how our intervention can drastically change this outcome?

the believer wrote:

there is none, just ranting on how bad the bush admin is doing. There will be more bush bashing in this thread and bringing up numbers of dead soldiers.

This is just the opinion of a no-hearted GOP conservative who has no problem sending young men to war. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but good luck suckers!!!

Yeah, the dems didn't want to be there in the first place. Thanks for screwing us over, repubs!

This may come as a shock to you and the rest of the Fox News salivators, but the Democrats have a much more well thought-out plan for fighting terrorism than anything we've seen from the retards in charge over the last 7 years.

It does admittedly involve a lot fewer arbitrary land invasions in countries which have absolutely nothing to do with terror attacks on the US, so maybe that's why you haven't quite understood it.

Remember that there's a real war against a real enemy in Afghanistan? Yeah, well trust me, there is. Halliburton may not make as much money on it but it's for real. Btw, we have lots of allies fighting that war with us too. But thanks to all you fuc\king morons and the fuc\king moron you voted for, the people we're fighting in Afghanistan now has a place they can go. Nice job.

Oh, and by the way, no amount of bullets or braindead bravado is gonna eradicate terrorism. It just doesn't work that way, but what the fu\ck do you know?

our talkers are good at selling ads, but none were ever in the military, so don\'t take them seriously, they are what is called \"chickenhawks\".

You guys are pretty good at hurling insults, not so much with the logic.

Here is the Democrat plan to defeat terrorism: Send flowers to the al-qaeda! Weave some nice little peace blankets, and beaded necklaces... As soon as the next democrat president is elected, Osama will be giggling, licking his chops

what's the point of this thread? you clearly have your preconceived notion of what democrats will do to fight terrorism. if you truly cared about learning about the platforms of democrats such as edwards, clinton and obama, you could visit their respective websites where their positions are laid out in detail.

there is no one democrat plan, just as there is no one republican plan. with respect to democrats, there is disagreement, for example, about whether an invasion of pakistan would be defensible or a good idea and whether open dialogue with iran and syria would be a good idea. with respect to republicans, respected long-time members of the party, such as john warner, disagree with the president on withdrawing troops from iraq.

anyone who falls for the idea that there is one correct plan for fighting terrorists, and that it is as simple as "fight them over them so we don't have to fight them here" is not serious about considering the best way to fight islamic extremists.

there clearly needs to be some combination of the use of force, diplomacy at the state level, use of prosecutorial and traditional police/FBI investigations, use of clandestine operations by the NSA and CIA, examination of US policy in the middle east and in the third world in general, examination of US aid policies and cooperation with foreign governments and NGOs.

the disagreement among candidates and parties is on the combination of the above. in general, the bush administration, as voiced most often by cheney, strongly favors black ops and military force over use of regular police/FBI and prosecution in US courts. (cheney's much-vilified quote about what would happen if kerry won the 2004 election was actually on this topic - he said something to the effect of "the danger is that we'll be struck again and that the response will be prosecution in US courts"; nearly all stories about the quote focused on the part before the and).

gordon brown, new prime minister in britain, as another example, has recently stated that terrorism should be treated as any other crime and fought with police and prosecution in regular courts.

in any event, if you actually care about considering the pluses and minuses of different approaches, go to the websites of the candidates, read some position papers by think tanks on a variety of points on the political spectrum, just educate yourself in general.

if you want to pretend that your side knows it all and the other side is a bunch of morons, keep posting stupid threads like this one. you're probably the same idiot who said hillary clinton's only job before being a US senator was as a lifeguard or something last week. you do realize that 2/3 or more of the crap that rush limbaugh says is only to get you riled up and it's not true, right?

if all college republicans and all war mongers joined the army then the war could be won. the pentagon is short of volunteers. if you are in school and/or have kids that's no excuse for wimping out if that's what you really believe.

myself, i have no hatred of persians, jews, nor arabs since i'm an engineering major and nearly our whole faculty is composed of central and middle asians, and semitics.

all war chimps join the army.

that's right. if you are a war chimp join the army and go to iraq.

that's the best plan to win the war.

we need you in iraq, not on letsrun.com.

then the rest of us can go to school.