|
|
| Would a Terrorist Attack before November (of the 9/11 Scale) Cause You? |
| Make You More Likely to Vote for Bush. |
|
14% |
[ 4 ] |
| Make You More Likely to Vote for Kerry. |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| Wouldn't sway your opinion either way. |
|
67% |
[ 19 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 07/08/04 - 14:06 Post subject:
| megawill wrote: | | What do you think will happen? |
Something along the lines of what happened when the Terrorist Groups bombed the train station in Spain a few months ago in an attempt to influence their national election. Hopefully, Americans have a bigger spine then the Spainards.
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/08/04 - 15:29 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | It won't sway my vote.... But I firmly believe something will happen on American soil prior to the Nov. election. |
I agree completely.
But I have to add that I'm voting for Ross Perot no matter what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/08/04 - 18:21 Post subject:
It doesn't make sense to me why they would love to disrupt our political process in the hopes of changing the leadership party as they feel they did with Spain. I am not convinced that Kerry's election would imply they would stop attempting to kill US citizens, as they have been at it for quite some time now while both a Democrat (Cole, WTC, embassies) and Republican (WTC, embassies, kidnapping) have been in office. And I don't think a re-elected Bush would imply that any additional attacks would be planned or any current plans would be canceled. No matter how we vote, the terrorists will still exist and will continue to be a$$holes. They hate all of America and could care less who our President is.
Both Clinton and Bush have had to deal with their attacks, so I don't understand what they wish to accomplish or how they want me to vote. This could only mean they want Nader to become our next President. So I'll vote for either Kerry or Bush just to thwart their efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/08/04 - 18:51 Post subject:
| Runner X wrote: | | It doesn't make sense to me why they would love to disrupt our political process in the hopes of changing the leadership party as they feel they did with Spain. |
One of the first acts of the new liberal govt. in Spain was to remove their forces from the coalition in Iraq. I would say the attack by Islamic terriorists had its desired effect.
|
|
|
|
|
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/08/04 - 19:57 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Runner X wrote: | | It doesn't make sense to me why they would love to disrupt our political process in the hopes of changing the leadership party as they feel they did with Spain. |
One of the first acts of the new liberal govt. in Spain was to remove their forces from the coalition in Iraq. I would say the attack by Islamic terriorists had its desired effect. |
For Spain, yes. I understood that.
But for us, what would the point be exactly? They have attacked us under both Clinton and Bush. It isn't like Kerry as President would end anything, nor would Bush's re-election mean we would be tougher on terrorism and end it that way.
My point is that terrorists will attack us no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 08:08 Post subject:
It won't change my vote, but I do hope Pug takes note and stays safe. I'm writting him in if he doesn't make the TX ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 09:00 Post subject:
Spain only had 1300 troops in the Iraq theatre, and they were under Polish command.
| The Spanish Prime Minister wrote: | Stressed Spain is not abandoning Iraq nor wavering from confronting terrorism. The troop pullout doesn't mean Spain renounces its commitment to provide stability and democratize Iraq.
"To the contrary, we will be partners, allies and firm defenders," working with other U.N. members "to achieve that dream which Iraqis themselves have to build a free and democratic Iraq," he added |
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 09:01 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Runner X wrote: | | It doesn't make sense to me why they would love to disrupt our political process in the hopes of changing the leadership party as they feel they did with Spain. |
One of the first acts of the new liberal govt. in Spain was to remove their forces from the coalition in Iraq. I would say the attack by Islamic terriorists had its desired effect. |
Wouldn't it then make sense for the terrorists to not attack before the election? Bush was at his strongest when he was leading the country in the weeks and months after 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 09:03 Post subject:
| Runner X wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | Runner X wrote: | | It doesn't make sense to me why they would love to disrupt our political process in the hopes of changing the leadership party as they feel they did with Spain. |
One of the first acts of the new liberal govt. in Spain was to remove their forces from the coalition in Iraq. I would say the attack by Islamic terriorists had its desired effect. |
For Spain, yes. I understood that.
But for us, what would the point be exactly? They have attacked us under both Clinton and Bush. It isn't like Kerry as President would end anything, nor would Bush's re-election mean we would be tougher on terrorism and end it that way.
My point is that terrorists will attack us no matter what. |
Up until 9/11, all of the attacks against the US and/our interests were on foreign soil. Not so any longer. The attacks are growing in intensity & organization as the Islamic Terrorists grown defiant.
If you don't think Bush will be (or is) tougher on terrorism then Kerry, I have some ocean front property for sale in Kansas. You may or may not agree with Bush's current actions, but at least he doesn't want to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem (ala Kerry). For the record - I don't think we will ever truly end terrorism (under any president - past, current, or future).
At least under the current adminstration, Bush has shown a willingness to fight them on their turf. Better there, then here (in my book).
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 09:07 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | Spain only had 1300 troops in the Iraq theatre, and they were under Polish command.
| The Spanish Prime Minister wrote: | Stressed Spain is not abandoning Iraq nor wavering from confronting terrorism. The troop pullout doesn't mean Spain renounces its commitment to provide stability and democratize Iraq.
"To the contrary, we will be partners, allies and firm defenders," working with other U.N. members "to achieve that dream which Iraqis themselves have to build a free and democratic Iraq," he added |
|
Nice spin, but the new Spanish leaders got cold feet and showed their true colors. His quote should have been - "We support the effort in Iraq... as long as we don't pay any of the bills or send in any of our troops."
Mere lip service. Please put your money where your mouth is Mr. Spanish Prime Minster.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 09:24 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Cappy wrote: | Spain only had 1300 troops in the Iraq theatre, and they were under Polish command.
| The Spanish Prime Minister wrote: | Stressed Spain is not abandoning Iraq nor wavering from confronting terrorism. The troop pullout doesn't mean Spain renounces its commitment to provide stability and democratize Iraq.
"To the contrary, we will be partners, allies and firm defenders," working with other U.N. members "to achieve that dream which Iraqis themselves have to build a free and democratic Iraq," he added |
|
Nice spin, but the new Spanish leaders got cold feet and showed their true colors. His quote should have been - "We support the effort in Iraq... as long as we don't pay any of the bills or send in any of our troops."
Mere lip service. Please put your money where your mouth is Mr. Spanish Prime Minster. |
That was my thought too. The article that I snipped this quote from, stated that 72% of Spainards wanted the Spanish troops withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 10:52 Post subject:
A terrorist attack of any nature wouldn't sway my vote at all. I have to agree that something major will probably happen before then, though. I'm just hoping DC gets the "we've already tried them once" vote and they skip over us this time!
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 11:09 Post subject:
If this whole election is about "experience" then another terrorist attack would make me even more likely to vote for Bush since he'd definitely be the candidate (and cabinet) with the most experience combatting terrorism. I'm afraid anyone else's learning curve would be too much of a window for increasing terrorism. It's not like there's any kind of real "transition".
If John Kerry wants to sway voters with terrorism high on their issue list for vote deciding he would right now name who he'd choose to replace Tom Ridge in his cabinet. Has he even hinted to anyone? This alone could easily win/lose the election for him.
|
|
|
|
|
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 11:09 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Up until 9/11, all of the attacks against the US and/our interests were on foreign soil. |
I disagree.
1993 terrorist attack on US soil
| sonnylax wrote: |
If you don't think Bush will be (or is) tougher on terrorism then Kerry. |
I never said that. I said that I don't think it matters to the terrorists if Bush or Kerry is President. They will still attempt the same number of attacks. This was in reference to them attempting to influence the election with a terrorist attack. My point was that it would be silly to think that voting for Kerry would somehow imply they would stop trying to kill people. And to keep this fair and balanced, Bush having a tougher foreign policy does not make any of us any safer.
I guess I'm trying to say that I don't see any logical tie between a terrorist attack and the election - other than they simply want to do a terrorist attack and could say it was to get Bush out of office. But their track record shows they don't really care who is in office.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 11:20 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
Wouldn't it then make sense for the terrorists to not attack before the election? Bush was at his strongest when he was leading the country in the weeks and months after 9/11. |
True. You think they would have seen the lesson in the hostage-taking of the Americans in Iran. The Iranians certainly did not want this to help Reagan get elected, but that's what happened (although in turn, that did get the hostages released on the day of his inauguration).
Any attack here before the election would probably ensure the election of the candidate seen as the most hawkish (which would be GWB).
|
|
|
|
