Topic: If Kerry Were President When The Wtc Was Hit...

[Kerrybuster]

Open to all opinions at first, then I tell opposing people to me why they're completely, utterly incorrect.

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

I think Kerry would have acted very similar to W because he would have had the same intelligence telling him what's going on

[Kerrybuster]

I disagree. I think Kerry would have pushed for further talks and tried to go unilaterally with Iraq and Sadaam Husseine. I think we would have had at least another attack and I believe that chaos would have followed his election including, but not limited to:

- Rased taxes
- Divided senate
- No progress made toward overturning Roe v. Wade
- Economic Depression
- Speedier rise of inflation
- Further limitations on firearms and higher taxation of guns and ammo
- Expansion of global terrorism

In fact, I'm certain these things would have happened.

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

And i'll have to disagree with you, I just think with the same intelligence Kerry would've went the same way, except he may have put less emphasis on Iraq

[Gideon Brown]

but would kerry have listened to osama's threats? cuz osama DID threaten to attack the US...

[IZ]

It doesn't matter, he WASN'T president during then.

[Hannahbal]

I don't think we can ever know what would've happened, because it didn't happen.

[Starr2k3]

This is completely pointless. We will never find out, so who cares?

[Hannahbal]

This is completely pointless. We will never find out, so who cares?

It's just a topic...people can reply to it if they want, or if they don't want to they don't have to. I think that for the most part we come here for a good time. We may as well share our opinions while doing so.

[Kerrybuster]

Truth be told nobody really knows because, let's face it, he tries so hard to mask who he is. I think he would have gone with the UN though as he has claimed throughout his life to believe in. (In fact, he believes that without UN approval an American life is not worth losing.)

A-to-the quote machine:

April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition, Frank Sesno hosting:

Dscussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"

Or, to spell it out more clearly, if we have the UN's support then our cause is worth American lives. Alone, an American life is not worth losing. Certainly this only specifically applies to entering that particlar country, but to believe that at any time in American history is frightening. Just think about some of the evil dictators and empires we've toppled unilaterally (that means us and them, mano a mano) in our nation's great history.

John Kerry believed this to be true when a Civil War occured on the other side of the world. (After Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in '92, civil war occured).

I believe that in John Kerry's world that having Sadaam Husseine in power at the time we went to war was no more an impending threat than that of this Bosnian conflict, which also took way on the other side of the world. In both cases we were in no imminent danger and in both cases US participation was completely voluntary.

He has said that the focus of this war on terror was Osama Bin Laden. If he believes that only Osama is a threat, then he believed (logically) that Sadaam was no more than a mere nuisance, correct? So you can come to the conclusion that under a Kerry administration, the war on Iraq is one better left to the UN which is far more capable of making a difference in such a large affair.

I think under Kerry we'd have attacked Afghanistan but Iraq would have been out of the question and remained unchecked, undergoing investigations and inspections to this very day.

[Kerrybuster]

On the other hand, Kerry has expressed serious concerns in a letter to congress that Sadaam should be bombed. I think the scary think here is not that I can tell you what he will do, but that I can't even come close to guessing. I have no clue what this guy will do if he's in office and that's not a safe bet for the Chief Executive Officer of the US.

[Hannahbal]

Kerrybuster, please do not double post. If you need to add something, go ahead and edit your post. There's a button right above any message that you post.

[Megan]

Try not to double post. I agree, we will never know how he would have handled it.

[Gideon Brown]

I think both candidates are horrible. Ugh. This year has been one of those horrible candidate years. Same in Canada. And we voted the idiot in. Ugh.  

[Kerrybuster]

Why don't we know what he would have done? Is it because... dum... dum... dum... he's been lying to us? I tell you what I know he would have done right now and you can dispute me if you wish, although nobody seems to have any of their own ideas or thoughts on the subject at this point.

Actual real-life scenario:

Kerry would have announced that we would hunt down and capture Osama Bin Laden and those directly responsible for the WTC attack, a handful of people and then we would have brought them to justice.

Kerry would also go unilateral with North Korea, as he has said.

Kerry would have continued unilateral talks with Sadaam Husseine in a la Bill Clinton and that, my dear comrades, would have been that.

And economically, he raises taxes wide and abroad and spends the money on government programs like his proposed healthcare, resulting in less medication and poorer treatment for everybody... but everyone would be covered.

Essentially, Kerry would have been a move toward a socialist America.