Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, I don't know? What kind of an asshole would assert that massive casualties is not_going_to_happen when they already have? Who in the fuck does not understand how much is at stake here, when both candidates agreed that MWD is the greatest threat to America? The whole point of an MWD is to cause mass casualties, and our choice is to elect someone who will minimize this possibility without surrendering our independence to France or directly to the Islamicists.
Hello
|
I agree that there is a strong possibility that there will be one or more attacks in the US that will result in large numbers of casualties. I just think that if you believe you can plot it out mathematically and show a reliable progression, you're goofy.
As far as who I believe will do the best job of preventing such attacks.... I don't believe anybody can prevent such attacks. I think that either candidate can put in place and adminster an intelligence and security infrastructure that will frustrate and prevent many opportunities. But the enemy is far more committed to this than us, and individually, they are far more willing to die. Which means that ultimately, they will find a chance to attack and they will do so.
In terms of who will, ultimately, do a better job of progressing us toward a resolution, I believe that Kerry is a more intelligent, more humanist person than Bush. Consequently, he will apply methods of dealing with the Mideast other than brute force that we are ultimately not willing to pay for on an unlimited basis.
