Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Will You Elect Terror Or Not?

  1. Sep 17, 2004 #1
    Cheney recently made a threat to Americans that if Kerry and Edwards made it to office, terrorists would attack.

    So far, not ironically, it was Bush and Cheney that were in office during 911, not Clinton or Kerry.

    Based upon what you've seen, read or heard that is worthy of taking into consideration please answer my poll question.

    Here's the question:

    Which 2004 presidential candidate, if elected, is more likely to have a terror attack against innocent Americans occur during their term as president?

    Bush or Kerry?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 17, 2004 #2
    In other words, nothing you have posted.

    Your poll is useless. All it in essence asks is "Who are you voting for in this election?"
     
  4. Sep 17, 2004 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    JW, don't make this personal. :devil:
     
  5. Sep 18, 2004 #4

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think either candidate matters to the terrorists, they want to kill Americans because we do not convert to Islam. In fact, I think it is a near-certainty that there will be terrorist attacks on the US during the next four years. However, I think Bush will do a lot more to impede their success. It may have been Bush in office on 9/11, but it was our "do nothing" policy under Clinton that led to the attacks. Up untill then, most Americans (including myself) believed and hoped that if we left the terrorists alone, they would leave us alone. The Democratic Party still seems to think so, but I believe that history has taught us otherwise.
     
  6. Sep 18, 2004 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And you can substantiate this observation ??
     
  7. Sep 18, 2004 #6
    In Arabia, they say they want to kill us Arabs because we don't want to convert to their doctrine of Democracy. Bush isn't practicing Democracy and Freedom for Iraqis. Democracy is a result of the peoples will, not an invading murdering, theiving tyrants idea for Iraqis. It's obvious, there will today is to defend themselves by taking out as many ignorant brainwashed murderers called the US military. Any human naturally defends their homeland from invasion of murderous theiving thugs.

    Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? Would you say it's more likely that you would throw a punch if you were being talked to or being physically hit? Now, let me ask this question, do you think a policy of diplomacy increases the terror threat more than policy of war, or vice versa? And which is more significantly inciting of physical threat against America, diplomatic leadership Kerry offers or killing thousands of innocent civilians, what Bush has to offer? Bush isn't getting off scott free for Operation:Murder Iraqis, when the entire world voiced there stand against it. We need Kerry in office.

    Keep in mind what the sactions did to the innocent cilvilians in Iraq. That was hardly a do nothing policy. By default it was indirect murder of innocents. This policy was set up while Bush was in office. Clinton should have taken care of it, you're right. But not by murdering more Iraqi's like Bush is now doing.
     
  8. Sep 18, 2004 #7
    Your not an Iraqi, so dont pretend you know better what they want than the Iraqis themselves. Soon they will be able to speak for themselves, and theyre not gonna be nice to ppl like you. Now lets stay on topic.
     
  9. Sep 18, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    you watch too much Fox News!
     
  10. Sep 18, 2004 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I voted equally likely. They [radicallized Islam] hate in the name of God not in the name of the US President. They are just a bunch of nuts, outcasts, criminals, and seriously, mentally screwed up people who could care less about what we do.
     
  11. Sep 18, 2004 #10
    how long did the attacks on 911 take to actually happen after the planing was finished? i thought it was years or something. i dont think it matters whos in office at the time of the attacks, but whos been in office while the plans started getting made an the terrorist's resolve is solidified

    most of the people iv spoken with on the internet refer to bush as the person whos starting wars and not the usa, there is a notable distinction. i think that bush is going to draw more aggression then kerry but i do not think there will be any catastrophic terrorist acts in either outcome, or in the term after this one
     
  12. Sep 20, 2004 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FWIW, Clinton did confront terrorism (e.g., 1998 missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan and indicting bin Laden) but, granted, not as much as Bush is now. 9/11 changed that political mindset.

    Also, terrorists such as ObL were angry with the US prior to the Clinton Administration.

    Could Clinton have done more? Now that could be a debate.
     
  13. Sep 20, 2004 #12
    Why are we blaming either President?
     
  14. Sep 21, 2004 #13
    Thats what im wondering too JD. There is absolutely no justification for what OBL has done and the blame should be put on him
     
  15. Sep 21, 2004 #14
    Leaders have a responsibility for what is occuring and how we influence what occurs. Terror and war is an indications they are doing a less efficient job in this day and age.
     
  16. Sep 21, 2004 #15
    Yes they do. Why dont you listen to yourself and put the blame for terrorist attacks at the extremist leaders?

    Thats where your wrong. How do you know there wouldnt be twice as much war and terror if the leaders had made diffrent choices?
    Also dont forget, when you fight terrorists, theyre gonna fight back and i hope you agree with me, they should be fought(right?). Still by your definition, when you fight terrorists and they fight back, this is an indication that you are doing something wrong. After all, you were just hit by terrorists.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  17. Sep 21, 2004 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Lurch's position is almost exactly mine, but I do agree with JD that we shouldn't be focusing on internal blame here, but external blame. OBL hates us because we are Americans, we're free, and we're not Muslims. No president can change that (unless, of course, they kill him - then he can't hate us anymore), but I do agree that Bush will do more to actively fight OBL. And that leads us to Lurch's Democrats and isolationism thing:

    Show of hands - who here considers Democrats to generally be hawks and Republicans doves? Who considers Democrats to generally be in favor of globalization and Republicans against? And who here thinks isolationism has ever worked? Yeah, that's what I thought (I may need to start a new thread on that topic)...
     
  18. Sep 21, 2004 #17

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I voted "equal". Based on the interactions I've had with foreign students (including Arabs), the outside world can't see a whole lot of difference between Republican and Democrat. Arabs think they're both too liberal, and the rest of the world thinks they're both too conservative.
     
  19. Sep 22, 2004 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I voted equal likelihood for both candidates. I don't think either one has the solution to terrorism (does anyone really?). Neither of their approaches to foreign policy is suddenly going to make the terrorists start loving us, despite any attempts on the part of their campaigns to convince you otherwise.
     
  20. Sep 22, 2004 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Hmmm. I tend to agree the likelihood is equal. IMO, the heart of the problem is using the 'pound of cure' approach. Why would anyone sacrifice their own life to inflict a blow upon their 'enemies'? The naive answer is they have nothing left to lose. Is it just a coincidence they seem to share a universal sense of despair for the future given the status quo? Perhaps they are sick and tired of seeing their neighbors starve and die, of losing their parents due to lack of basic medical care, and watching their children living in such squalid conditions they are virtually assured of the same fate? People need hope for a better future: a sense of security if they fail and the possibility of rewards if they succeed. Hope is the ounce of prevention that is needed. If we give them jobs, debt, taxes, soccer practice, stress and moms who gripe when the grass gets too tall, or the house needs a fresh coat of paint, they won't be able to afford or have the spare time to blow up themselves, much less anyone else... they will just wish they did.
     
  21. Sep 22, 2004 #20
    Theyre angry about Palestine, not about their neighbour starving. Its a misconception that they do this because of poverty.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Will You Elect Terror Or Not?
Loading...