So...

[ubiquity0]

Somehow if Al Queda got hold of a nuke I doubt they would decline to use it on the grounds that it would make people more enraged than fearful.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by ed martin
Bizzare logic? Look what happened with Spains' election. Following the bombings of the train the conservative party was ousted in favor of the socialists whose platform included pulling their troops from Iraq, which they did. No, their objective is not to make Bush perform bad in the debate, that's icing on the cake, their objective is to make Bush's war look futile.

So again, they're going to quit it & go home after November 2nd?

[red ufo]

I think the MONKEY probably stayed up 5 days in a row on crack before the debate. He was tired from no sleep and sobering up, thus it splains his stupidity.

Otherwise if he wasn't on a binge, then he is just plain regular stupid.

[Jason Porter]

Originally posted by rcecale
Maybe so, Jason. But a dead terrorist buried in the sand over in Iraq, far, far away from here isn't even thinking about getting his hands on nuke-yoo-ler weapons. (Not with all those virgins running around. )

And taking the fight to their backyard is a pretty good strategy, if you ask me.

Kerry alluded to Alawi's statement about "terrorists rushing over the border into Iraq". I think that's awesome for us. Saves us the hassle of having to hunt them down over here.

Randy

Since when does a terrorist have to be in the US to use a nuclear weapon. Or another country for that matter.

A foreign party could ship a package to our port, detonate remotely with a cell phone after tracking the package with GPS, and destroy a major city with no warning at all. (I hope no terrorist are reading this) Food for thought...

Originally posted by turbo6bar
Good point, but isn't a terrorists biggest asset the ability to strike fear? Fear divides individuals. The use of a nuclear device would replace fear with rage. No one could possible support the terrorist cause after the use of nuclear weapons. IF a nuke took out an American city, the gloves would be off.
just another way to seeing things.
jurgen

What is scarier to you than the loss of millions of innocent Americans?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Jason at Pelican Parts
I still don't know who I'll vote for though...

Suggestions?

Of course..................lets see, most people have a single topic that is very important to them. What's yours?

The canvasing I'm doing asks a few questions for the November election.

What is the single most important issue for you this election?

1. Economy

2. Terrorism

3. Healthcare and perscription drugs

4. Environment

There are a few more choices, but you get the picture, gets you thinking don't it?

[Jason Porter]

Look, I'm not a Bush or Kerry supporter. I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I think the hard liners are a little too far gone on both sides...

For you hardline Dems - Liberty without restraint is anarchy.

For you hardline Reps - Reestraint without liberty is imprisonment.

[ed martin]

Think about it, do you think is just coincidence that the violence has taken such a sharp and dramatic upturn near our election? I believe that if Bush is reelected they may realise the futility of their actions. The violence won't completely disappear but would diminish. I think it would take a lot of wind out of their sails. If Kerry is elected probably the same would happen as they would be appeased. Maybe, maybe not, its really just a guess.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Jason at Pelican Parts
Doesn't it make a little more sense that that nuclear proliferation is the most important issue we still have.

Think about it, a terrorist with some C-4 can take out a building, or a stadium, or a train station.

A TERRORIST WITH A NUCLEAR DEVICE CAN TAKE OUT A STATE!!!

Jason. It would take an awful lot of C-4 to take out a Stadium. 2 tons of Ammonium-Nitrate didn't take down the Federal Building in OK city in 1995 or WTC #2 in 1993.

The multimegaton bombs are Thermo-nuclear, i.e., Hydrogen bombs. A few of those will take out a large city. A fisson bomb is usually measured in kilotons. While these are bad, they are not capable of completely destroying a large city, let alone a state. They would make a mess of a multi-square mile area. Stregeically placed, one could take out all branches of our Federal Govt, though.

No terrorist group would be able to make fusion bombs. Way too big.

James

[Jason Porter]

Originally posted by kach22i
Of course..................lets see, most people have a single topic that is very important to them. What's yours?

The canvasing I'm doing asks a few questions for the November election.

What is the single most important issue for you this election?

1. Economy

2. Terrorism

3. Healthcare and perscription drugs

4. Environment

There are a few more choices, but you get the picture, gets you thinking don't it?

None of those issues matter without the others...

Healthcare - If we aren't healthy, how can we work to pay taxes to support the economy? How can we fight?

Economy - If we're broke, how can we pay for the war on terror, or provide reasonable healthcare?

Terrorism - Terrorism is inexcusable, but we can't fight it alone. This truly needs to be a world wide united coalition, and the more people they kill in more places, the more it will become so. Sad to say...

Environment - We are killing our planet, but if we don't stop killing each other, does it matter. If the economy is operating properly, we can fight smart, and not hard, on both fronts.

Education - Ooops, I'm sorry, that wasn't even mentioned. I think that's as important as any ofthe other issues on the table too, but if these all aren't dealt with, we're dead in more ways than one.

[ed martin]

I think terrorism is the most important issue. That would include the spector of nuclear attack. To put it mildly, one nuclear event would adversely affect the economy, our health and the environment.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rcale:
Maybe so, Jason. But a dead terrorist buried in the sand over in Iraq, far, far away from here isn't even thinking about getting his hands on nuke-yoo-ler weapons.

Randy - I believe you're right to an extent. An Iraqi "terrorist" is unlikely to have the funding (and frankly the intellect) to use an ex-Soviet nuke as a terrorist device. The Saudis, however, are a much more likely threat, considering their track record and their sheer volume of resources and influence.

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
Some factcheck stuff here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134160,00.html
. . .

Good stuff there. (an AP piece, not Foxes)

Though they missed a big one.

Kerry claimed that he had not used such a harsh word as "LIED" wrt Bush.

JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth."
SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did."

from a year ago;
"This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process .. . .." --Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03

I imagine there are others.

[island911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
This is funny I guess it's nice to see you guys outta the dumps for a while, but this was NOT earth moving. In fact I guarantee some VERY nice commercials for Bush will come out of this. . . .

heh-heh . ..you are right. ANd it might look something like this!

[araine901]

Dont think Iraqi terrorists lack funding. Saddam had 6 times more wealth than the Queen of England just a year before he became a rat in a cage. He even built a state of the art traning center big enough to train 600 terroritst at a time in Bagdad, That one was used exculsivly by the PLA. What Palistinian terrotist in Iraq before Saddam was deposed? Say it aint so.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Jason at Pelican Parts
Since when does a terrorist have to be in the US to use a nuclear weapon. Or another country for that matter.

A foreign party could ship a package to our port, detonate remotely with a cell phone after tracking the package with GPS, and destroy a major city with no warning at all. (I hope no terrorist are reading this) Food for thought...

Jason, you missed a KEY point in what I wrote. If the terrorist is DEAD, he's not gonna be able to detonate anything.

Originally posted by Adam Chaplin
Randy - I believe you're right to an extent. An Iraqi "terrorist" is unlikely to have the funding (and frankly the intellect) to use an ex-Soviet nuke as a terrorist device. The Saudis, however, are a much more likely threat, considering their track record and their sheer volume of resources and influence.

Adam, according to Mr. Alawi, the terrorists are flooding through the border INTO Iraq. I would think it likely that a least a large percentage of those guys are the Saudis you speak of. Again, if one dies in Iraq, he is no longer a threat somewhere else in the world...not just the U.S.

Randy

[Jason Porter]

Originally posted by red-beard
Jason. It would take an awful lot of C-4 to take out a Stadium. 2 tons of Ammonium-Nitrate didn't take down the Federal Building in OK city in 1995 or WTC #2 in 1993.

The multimegaton bombs are Thermo-nuclear, i.e., Hydrogen bombs. A few of those will take out a large city. A fisson bomb is usually measured in kilotons. While these are bad, they are not capable of completely destroying a large city, let alone a state. They would make a mess of a multi-square mile area. Stregeically placed, one could take out all branches of our Federal Govt, though.

No terrorist group would be able to make fusion bombs. Way too big.

James

First of all, anybody can do anything they can afford.

Second, you don't have to destroy a city to kill or injure everybody there.

Third, taking out our government has it's ups and downs. Mostly downs, but let's not try and fool ourselves that there aren't some severe A-holes we couldn't all do without. Although I still woudn't condone killing anybody just for being a prick. Lord knows, most of the people in my family would've been dead long before they had the chance to make me.

Rhode Island is a multi-square mile area...and a state. So is New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Dallas etc.

Fifth, anybody can do anything they can afford...except buy happiness (although I hear it makes a nice down-payment)

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Jason at Pelican Parts
Education - Ooops, I'm sorry, that wasn't even mentioned. I think that's as important as any ofthe other issues on the table too, but if these all aren't dealt with, we're dead in more ways than one.

Oops, I forgot that one, and it's in the script.......big suprise many of the U of M students pick that one. Although in Michigan (Ann Arbor) the economy is the number one issue selected, another non-suprise.

Your point that all issues are inter-connected is correct, no argument from me.

So if we did not go it alone, how would that effect change all the other issues? It would, and across the board......think cause and affect.

But you don't understand.....he tried to kill my daddy.