During a war, who do you feel safer with?

AlphaGamDiva · #1 02-13-2004, 12:18 PM

a dem or a repub? a lot of ppl on the news, etc claim that historically the country feels "safer" with a republican as commander in chief. do you agree with that? if you do/don't, why or why not?

would you have felt better/safer/more at ease after 9/11 if a dem was in office and had responded in a different way?

it's some speculation about how different parties re-act to things.....but in general.

.....hopefully that makes sense

33girl · #2 02-13-2004, 12:37 PM

party-wise, I don't know, but I sure as hell was glad Bush was in office instead of Gore. Although if it would have been a different Dem that might have been a different story.

enlightenment06 · #3 02-13-2004, 12:38 PM

it's the person who's in office that matters.

damasa · #4 02-13-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enlightenment06
it's the person who's in office that matters.

I also think that it is the person and not the party.

I don't feel safe with the current president in office. If there are WMD out there, this admin claimed to know where they are and they haven't found them yet. So if they do exist, they are still out there and that makes me feel unsafe.

If they aren't really out there then I still don't feel safe having a president that lies to his people....

But I don't know if they are or aren't out there.

WCUgirl · #5 02-13-2004, 12:44 PM

I'd rather not be at war.

I diagree with almost everything Republicans do, so I don't think I can objectively answer that question. Also, I don't feel like I've experienced enough of those wars in the capacity that I could fully comprehend what was going on. I was in 6th grade during Desert Storm, so I don't really remember feeling safe or not...or even really remembering that I fully understood what was going on and what all the issues were. I would have to say I would prefer to have a Dem. in office ANYTIME, especially during wartime.

Yes, I would have felt a lot safer after 9-11 if a Democrat was in office because I believe they would have handled it in a different way than Bush did. I don't feel any safer...so we have a color-code now that everyone ignores because it's always being raised. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? And how did going after Sadaam punish Osama for 9-11? I don't know what a Dem. would have done, or that I would feel any safer, but I know that I don't feel safe under current leadership. Lord only knows when and what "intelligence" we'll get and they'll go blow up another country and be at war again.

But I do have to agree with the previous posters that it's the person and not the party that counts. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats.

Rudey · #6 02-13-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXiD670
I'd rather not be at war.

I diagree with almost everything Republicans do, so I don't think I can objectively answer that question. Also, I don't feel like I've experienced enough of those wars in the capacity that I could fully comprehend what was going on. I was in 6th grade during Desert Storm, so I don't really remember feeling safe or not...or even really remembering that I fully understood what was going on and what all the issues were. I would have to say I would prefer to have a Dem. in office ANYTIME, especially during wartime.

Yes, I would have felt a lot safer after 9-11 if a Democrat was in office because I believe they would have handled it in a different way than Bush did. I don't feel any safer...so we have a color-code now that everyone ignores because it's always being raised. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? And how did going after Sadaam punish Osama for 9-11? I don't know what a Dem. would have done, or that I would feel any safer, but I know that I don't feel safe under current leadership. Lord only knows when and what "intelligence" we'll get and they'll go blow up another country and be at war again.

But I do have to agree with the previous posters that it's the person and not the party that counts. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats.

You're one of those people that says a million things and doesn't give reasons for them. I mean if you hate war so much what did it matter whether our war on terrorism hasn't shown Osama?

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #7 02-13-2004, 12:57 PM

The Vietnam War crossed a couple of Republican and a couple of Democratic administrations. I don't think any of them did a particularly good job, because they didn't allow the military to execute the war. Targets were chosen for political reasons, rather than strategic. We could (would) have won that war had the professional military been allowed to wage it.

I think that President Bush has done a reasonably good job of allowing that to happen in this war -- although I'm still not convinced we should have fought it at all.

I agree, in the long run, that it is the person, not the party that makes the difference.

WCUgirl · #8 02-13-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
You're one of those people that says a million things and doesn't give reasons for them. I mean if you hate war so much what did it matter whether our war on terrorism hasn't shown Osama?

-Rudey

How do I say a million things and not give reasons for them? Why should I have to justify my opinions to you or anyone else?

And why do we have to wage war or be at war to get rid of Osama or any other terrorists? My reasoning: there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Rudey · #9 02-13-2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXiD670
What are you talking about? You make no sense. Whatever.

Why should I have to justify my opinions to you or anyone else?

-Rudey
--Thanks for playing the game.

WCUgirl · #10 02-13-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Why should I have to justify my opinions to you or anyone else?

-Rudey
--Thanks for playing the game.

Oh I get it now - you don't like people who oppose you or your opinions. You're one of those people who are ALWAYS right I bet. And if someone says something that you don't agree with, you have to act like a complete jerk because you're not intelligent or mature enough to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE their opinion might be valid or that there is more than one way to think or act.

Boy, you've really put me in my place and exposed me for who I really am.

Dear Lord please let me grow up and be as smart as Rudey one day. Forgive me for being so dumb and silly and allow me to think on my own for once. Amen.

PhiPsiRuss · #11 02-13-2004, 02:05 PM

It was the policy decisions, and tolerance of attacks against American targets by the Clinton administration that brought us 9-11. Moral equivication is a hallmark of modern Democratic defense policy, so, without question, I don't just feel safer, but we are all much safer with a Republican administration then what the Democrats have to offer.

jh124 · #12 02-13-2004, 02:15 PM

I'm tired of people who didn't go to war sending others to war. Hiding out in the National Guard (or Oxford - for Rudey) is a chickenshit way to face the draft. IMHO, they have no experience in war, so they have no business sending others into harms way.

And, I happen to know first hand from a DC cabdriver who I don't doubt has al queda connections, if Gore had won the election, 9/11 never would have happened. The Middle East hates the Bush family. And I'm sure a cabdriver of Middle Eastern origin would know those things for a fact, right?

AlphaGamDiva · #13 02-13-2004, 02:41 PM

i also totally agree that it is the person, not the party.....just asking in general terms......i think you all got that, though, just wanted to make myself clear.

Quote:

Originallu posted by jh124
IMHO, they have no experience in war, so they have no business sending others into harms way.

so since clinton had even less experience in dealing with a war, he was right in never putting into action the documents he signed about ridding the world of saddam? makes sense...... :not rolling eyes, just raising an eyebrow: that's why the president has advisors and consults with ppl. i'm sure that just b/c a person is the leader of a country, it doesn't mean he has done everything that he needs others to do. and just b/c a man is president, it doesn't mean he is perfect or has all the answers......but if he can get with the right ppl, he can hopefully come up with a solution. there will never be a president that everyone thinks is superman or a genius. clinton was a man-ho, bush is an idiot.....that kind of stuff will go on forever.

Quote:

Originally posted by jh124
if Gore had won the election, 9/11 never would have happened. The Middle East hates the Bush family. And I'm sure a cabdriver of Middle Eastern origin would know those things for a fact, right?

i'm trying to take this in the light-hearted way i am pretty sure you meant it.....but just to stir the pot

---does that mean we should elect someone under the thinking that he won't upset the terrorists? why do you think middle easterners hate the bush family? b/c they want to stop the terror they cause.

the question is: based on party policies, etc....which is the best to have in office during a time of war?

PhiPsiRuss · #14 02-13-2004, 02:42 PM

FDR had no experience in war.

Rudey · #15 02-13-2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXiD670
Oh I get it now - you don't like people who oppose you or your opinions. You're one of those people who are ALWAYS right I bet. And if someone says something that you don't agree with, you have to act like a complete jerk because you're not intelligent or mature enough to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE their opinion might be valid or that there is more than one way to think or act.

Boy, you've really put me in my place and exposed me for who I really am.

Dear Lord please let me grow up and be as smart as Rudey one day. Forgive me for being so dumb and silly and allow me to think on my own for once. Amen.

Dear Lord, don't use intelligence in the same post about you and I. You said you don't have to justify yourself - that was your defense of your beliefs so leave mine be.

-Rudey