MovieChat Forums > Amerika (1987) Discussion > If Kerrey were elected president Amerika...

If Kerrey were elected president Amerika could have become a way of life

posted 19 years ago by gary3414
58 replies | jump to latest

Acoording to one poster if Kerry had been elected Amerika might have been a way of life. If Bush had decided to go after Iraq eight months sooner Kerry might have been elected because all the problems of our troops getting killed would have happened eight months sooner. Last July most American didn't support the way Bush was handleing Iraq and many in the US wanted us out of Iraq. If all this happened eight months sooner that would have been last November and Bush would have been defeated. Bush would have not gone into Iraq any sooner that July 2002 because you would not want a war that might disrupt the Olympics and World Cup Soccer. When the World Cup was over you might as well say lets wait another week until Wimbledon is over. Many American didn't seem to want to travel outside of the US and Canada when the war in Iraq began so you would not want US players staying away from the World Cup and Wimbledon so that is why July would have been the earliest for a war with Iraq to begin. If fact all the anti Kerry posters by Bush said Kerry might give the US away. It would just be Iran that would substite for the Soviets or maybe some terrorist group that would take over instead. Kerry would most likely have gotten us out or Iraq by now claiming that we can't afford to be there after Katrina and Reta. He would not be as agressive in stopping Iran and North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. Iran may be ten years away but North Korea may have then now but has not tested them. If Kerry seemed to be giving the US away it is highly unlikely you could have had a bloddless takeover because there would not likely be enough time beofore the 2008 elections and Kerry would have had an even worse defeat the Carter in 1980.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

Actually Bill Clinton did not get elected until 1992 and took officde January 20, 1993, after the Soviet Union had broken up and many say it was Reagan and Bush that helped break up the Soviet union with their tough stance. I can remember the 1984 Democrt that was running for president wanted to undo all of economic refors that Reagan had done and them some. Interest rates had gone so high that few could afford a home unless they had sold another and George McGoveren said he would raise taxes and bring interest rates down to help reduce the deficit. He also wanted to have massive subsidies to help first time home buyers. That would have taken lots of money and he would have gutted the military and then perhpas Amerika would have happened if the Soviets took over more and more territory we might have had that bloodless surrender.

[–] macparks-2 18 years ago

I'm just glad we didn't have to find out and that John Kerry remains the junior senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

In fact if the second Bush decided to start the second war in Iraq eight months sooner he probaly would lost the election and John Kerry would be been elected president becuase the dissatifaction of the war by the public would have started eigth months sooner. By now we would would have been out of Iraq. His claim would be that is you pull out your troops you will be less of a target for terror. July 2002 is the earliest that a second war with Iraq could have begun. The reason is you would not have wanted a war during the February 2002 Olympics and they after that you have the World Cup in June 2002. The World Cup Also overlapped the French Open and Wimbledon tennis tournament. Those three together would have lasted May 27 to July 7. Since many US people did not want to travel abroad druing the wars with Iraq you would have wanted to wait at least until those events were over.

[–] DarthAlgar 18 years ago

I don't understand you guys. Under Bush we have alienated pretty much the entire world. We are losing Allies like flies. How is this a good thing? He and his advisors need to understand that in the long haul, we cannot just go it alone against other countries we see as a threat. We need assistance. Unfortunately, we are not gonna get that anywhere because almost everyone outside of America hates Bush with a passion.

Yes, I am also worried about North Korea because the dude running the country is clearly a whacko. But if we invade that country, then Hawaii, Alaska, or Southern California might end up becoming a very quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. No one wants that.

You guys need to understand that us Dems are not evil. All we want is the country to become great again. It seems since Bush 2.0 took over it has morphed into a militant theocracy. Our Founding Fathers never wanted this.

"I'm George W Bush, and I approve this message. Tacos Rule!" Robot Chicken

[–] tgs333 18 years ago

If you look back on the 2004 election, you'll notice that Kerry and Bushes agenda's were not all that different.

"They call him the giggler, he laughs when he runs."

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

Both Kerry and Bush planned to protect the US from terror. However Kerry might have had a policy that would not as likely invite terrorists to attack the US but then again when terrorists stuck he would not be as harsh against teh terrorists..

[–] tgs333 18 years ago

I have to think that the terrorists are buying their time before they attack the USA again on US soil. They're waiting for the next Presidental election to be over with. I'm not one of those "PRO BUSH Gung Ho Types", but I do like Bush, just as I like Kerry. Anyways, I think the Terrorists know better not to attack US soil while W is in the oval office. Bush would respond with a nuclear attack and they know it.

Now, this can lead to another topic. If I am correct, and the terrorists are waiting to see who sits in the oval office in 2009, which elected President would the Terrorist be more willing to attack?

I would think if McCain got in, they would hit us hard. I'm apt to think they would not hit us (or not as hard) if Hillary is in. Then again, if the former mayor of New York gets in, I think they would probably hit us, only to test him.

"They call him the giggler, he laughs when he runs."

[–] DarthAlgar 18 years ago

I doubt the terrorists would mess with McCain. That dude is badass, and probably the only Republican out there I would support. But the Rs will never allow him to run.

I think if Hillary is in, they would try something eventually, but that may end up being a big mistake.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

First of all the Trade Center was attacked twice. First with a Democrat and then with a Republican in office. Also Clinton was still in office when we had the embassy attacks in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000 just before the election. The Cole attack may have cost the Democract who was running against Bush in 2000. Clinton did respond with the embassy attacks but not with the Cole attack less than a month before the elections. If you go back to 1981 and 1986 Lybia attacked our planes both times and we bombed Lybia in 1986. Then Lybia was responsible for a milatary base attack about ten days later and Regean odered another bombing of Lybia. Then just after the first Bush was elected Lybia was behind the bombing of the PAA plane and we did nothing because it took so long to figure out what happened. A Democrat elected in 2008 would more likely pull out troops out of Iraq and that would make us safeer in the short run but in the long run would make us more likely a terror target.

[–] DarthAlgar 18 years ago

Maybe so. Can't say I'm an expert in this field, but I think that this current administration is doing a heck of a lot more harm than good. Why?

Because of the alienation of our Allies, and also because in his pursuit to catch the No 1 terrorist Osama, Bush is in essence creating thousands of new Osamas for our next 3 or 4 presidents to deal with. All these Arabs are seeing some of our soldiers torturing prisoners and some innocents die or be maimed as collateral damage. They will not forget this. Ever.

Let's face it, the rest of the world hates us right now. This is due in most part to the current administration and their insistence on going in alone on everything.

I doubt anyone would deny the fact that we are much more disliked now than before he took office.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

You are correct on that one that since we were in Iraq we have been or disliked. Terrorists will hit us more perhaps until they drive us out of Iraq. That would give the terrorists a signal to try something else. In fact if the terrorists wanted to drive us out of Iraq and Afganistan they should travel back in time and undo those 9/11/01 attacks. That is what got us into Afganistan in the first place and that is when Bush said we need to go into Iraq. Without those 9/11/01 attackes we would not be in Afganistan and perhaps not in Iraq either. Then if we were in Iraq after all they might be able to launch an attack on us at the present time instead. Remember you would not have all the high security so an attack today would be easier to carry out. You might have airplanes but this time only one on the Capitol building which would kill many members of congress and disrupt lawmaking. If the Capitol building was first that plane would not have forced down by the pasengers if you never had 9/11/01 first. The other attacks might invole power plants with a single suicided bombers. Also doing it in extremely cold weather would cause much more suffereing. THe whole nations might be blacked out. AT least American would save on their heating bills.

[–] tgs333 18 years ago

Maybe we'll attack a nation with a good supply of natural gas next.

"They call him the giggler, he laughs when he runs."

[–] DarthAlgar 18 years ago

Am I the only one who cannot stand how the major news networks run massive stories that tell about a security flaw could be blatantly exploited?

They do it every few weeks. They say bridges are vulnerable, or the ports, or the food supply, and go into grand detail.

Why are they doing this? It is like they are doing the homework for the terrorists, and giving them ideas for the future.

I absolutely cannot stand how they do this.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

I agree they may be doing homework for the terrorists.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarthAlgar 18 years ago

Dude, I think you got a hold of some bad acid.

[–] tgs333 18 years ago

Remember the ALAMO!

"They call him the giggler, he laughs when he runs."

[–] zombiebloodfeast 17 years ago

"""In fact if the terrorists wanted to drive us out of Iraq and Afganistan they should travel back in time and undo those 9/11/01 attacks. That is what got us into Afganistan in the first place and that is when Bush said we need to go into Iraq. Without those 9/11/01 attackes we would not be in Afganistan and perhaps not in Iraq either."""

You are aware were doing little to nothing in afganistan right?
Little to nothing, unless you count letting the massive cash crops of opium supplying poppy flowers flourish and fund the terroists ability to buy weapons and hire on mercenaries/services.
Warlords force innocents to farm these crops sometimes at their own exspense, or sometimes, letting the farmers also reap some reward in the form of food and medicine, winning more loyalty to thier side as they begin to view these warlords as their benefactors.
How does this help our cause?
Would wiping out these crops really be that difficult? Why are we allowing them to exist and help fund the fight against us?

Please explain how destroying the infrastructure of a country that wasnt responsible for or connected to the 9/11 attacks is helping to undermine the people responsible?

Please, stop thinking partisian, observe the details, and make your own, genuinely unbiased decision.
And never try to prove yourself right, youre more likely to have the right idea when trying to discredit your own opinion.
Speculate, observe, and see where it leads you.
Think as an individual, without disrespecting your fellow citizen, it's your duty as a patriotic american.

[–] fishboy266 16 years ago

I just wish Cheney and Rumsfeld would have run in 2008... the title of the documentary about their admistration could be called:

"The Most Likable Guys in the Room!"

alternate title - Wall to wall charisma and arrogance with Dick and Rummey!

vs. The Smartest Guys in the Room (the story of Enron - 2005)

[–] tlasjr 15 years ago

1. In the movie the President who surrenders to the Soviets IS A REPUBLICAN.

2. You got John Kerry's name wrong.

3. Walter monale ran against Reagan and lost in 1984, not George Mcgovern. Mcgovern lost the election in 1972 to Richard Nixon.

4. The scenario in the movie presents that the American nuclear deterrent is redered impotent by a Soviet first strike. Exactly how would it make a difference who was in charge if we were suddenly faced with accepting 20,000 nuclear warheads dotting the countryside with zero ability to respond?

[–] ronpur 14 years ago

It is so funny to read these old post and see just how far wrong everyone is, LOL.

[–] warlok1 16 years ago

"If you look back on the 2004 election, you'll notice that Kerry and Bushes agenda's were not all that different. "

Wouldn't matter who'd get elected, the agenda of Skull and Bones would stay the same.

[–] notserp 17 years ago

They're comments make sense when you understand most Bush Supporters point of view: They have their head up their a**.

[–] davidemartin 13 years ago

Well said, Notserp. Well said !

[–] nuv 18 years ago

To Macparks-2...

Yes, John Kerry from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, hardy har-har, whose state is run by...a Republican Governor.

How do like them apples? Next time, try to think a little more coherently before you spout off some political diarrhea on the web. Maybe you would better off just sitting on your couch, eating some Wow! potato chips while listening to Bill O'Riley. Then you could have diarrhea while you listen to diarrhea.

As to the mini-series...absolutely laughable melodramatics, and only 2 years before the Berlin Wall came falling down. Chris Christopherson should be ashamed, for him it was like reliving a nightmare I'm sure. They should call this series Heaven's Gate 2: The Commie Bastard Years.

[–] deanofrpps 17 years ago

instead you had The Bush who piddled in his pants and skulked away on 9 - 11. I say give the Medal of honor to the porter who mopped the floors in the Florida school house.

HA Andrews

[–] mephis5 16 years ago

Or maybe the scarrry Soviet Union was flat broke and dirt poor, and their economy collapsed--which is what happened.

God! read a freakin' history book, man!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sobarge 18 years ago

How about that! All we got now is illegal wire taps and monitors. Nothing like the KGB. Right?

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

If Kerrey had been elected president he wouldn't be very concerned with Iran restarting its nuclear program. Also he would have made sure Cuba was admitted into the World Baseball Classis that will be held on mostly US soil. The treasure department denied the Cuban entry

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

I know there were a lot of critics and many people I talked to would give the US away. If you had a "pay as you go" policy that would mean you would have a balanced budget but how would you do it. Would you gut the military and thus give the US away? Would you perhaps cut out all the waiste? However if you cut to much at once you could trigger a recession.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

I am for the balanced budget and I am a Republican. However I don't want the budget balanced by gutting the armed services to next to nothing because then we might end up giving up are freedon and the Amerika might come to pass. Pork barrel projects need to be cut instead.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

I agree.

[–] rudhraigh 18 years ago

Statistically, terrorist attacks have gone through the roof since the War on Terror began, whilst America has removed many potential enemies, if Vietnam taught you anything it should be that you can't destroy an entrenched guerrilla force, especially when they have access to a global network of weapons of mass destruction. When will America realise that whilst the loss of the 9-11 dead was absolutely tragic, it could have and might still be much worse? And that that means that you need to think about it a little better?
I think that fixing the problem needs a little bit more finesse than just the populist move of invading countries and threatening nuclear war.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

How could the 9/11/01 attacks been much worse.

[–] Oreo-12 18 years ago

9/11/01 could have been much worse. What if terrorists had gotten a nuclear weapon and unleashed it on Manhatten. The effects would have been horrifying. Waht if they had gotten hold of a biological weapon and unleashed it anywhere in any major population center. See the FX mockumentary Smallpox, it's very good.

Anyway, I do support President Bush. I don't like him, but I do support him.

The only person in the world sits in his shack, all of a sudden, a knock on the door.

[–] gary3414 18 years ago

If there was a nuclear or biologigal weapon on 9/11/01 you might never had planes crashing. The World Trade Center would have already been down.

[–] ratiocinator 18 years ago

America, and the world, is very quickly becoming a totalitarian police state, regardless of whoever the prevailing puppet happens to be. It is called the New World Order and Kerry is a part of it just as his cousin and fellow Skull & Bones (Order of Death) member Bush is. They are both puppets of the real leaders who remain hidden. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, they are essentially the same. The 'left - right' system is a false paradigm. Learn about this stuff on www.infowars.com and www.prisonplanet.com and many other truth sites.

[–] Slyfox00138 18 years ago

Things I find funny about American Politics...

1) The way republicans are viewed as the "right" and democrats are viewed as the "left". THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT WING PARTIES! Take a look at the policies of european Leftist parties (and I am not talking about British New Labour) and then try and compare them to the policies of the Democratic Party. In Europe, "left" generally refers to Socialist (usually Trotskyist) parties, which have nothing at all in common with the politics espoused by the democratic party. The gap between "left" and "right" in America is FAR shorter than that in europe, as frankly, I feel that both Republican and Democratic parties solve issues in much the same manner and the main division seperating them boils down to bitter partisanism and name-calling (or as I like to call it, Coulterism).

2) The way some people think that Communism boils down to "enslavement of the people" as a stated aim. This is a great (but in some ways justified) misconception. Soviet communism is generally looked upon by most socialist parties as a mistake or a "deformed workers state" after Stalin took control. REAL socialism (in theory) is a very different idea to what was implemented under Stalinism. Its about emancipation of the working classes. It espouses a philosophy of "From each according to ability, to each according to need". The reason for the mass nationalization of industry is not meant to be a method of repression, but a guaruntee of freedom to those who work there. All nationalized companies would (according to the theory) be ran by the people who worked there directly through elected councils (similear to the already-in-use idea of Worker Directors, except on a much greater scale). Very few would hold that private corporations are ran with the common good first and foremost in their mind, as that place is reserved for profit. It is hoped that through nationalization, industry would operate with the common good as their no.1 aim instead of profit. The gap between rich and poor would slowly shrink aswell, as most workers would be in the pay of the state. To be honest, I would have little sympathy if the 100 richest people in my country got slightly poorer in order to dramatically improve the lives of the poorest 1000. All elected officials would be subject to recall on presentation of a petition containing the names of a certain percentage of his/her constituents. He/she would have to go through the election process again, and they could either get re-elected or a new candidate could take his/her place. As you can see, Marxist-Socialism is very democratic in essence and it is only when it is corrupted to Stalinism, that things can take a totalitarian turn.

Plus, lets remember that even Cuba (a thoroughly deformed workers state) has a lower crime rate, a better health care system, a lower infant mortality rate and a higher quality education system proportionally wen compared with America. My point is two-fold...
1) Imagine what it could achieve WITHOUT the unjustifyable embargo (and for those who would defend the embargo using the "evil communist" argument, I would like to remind you that one of your biggest trading partners is "Red" China, why no embargo there?)

2) Imagine what it could achieve if marxism was implemented PROPERLY there?

Im sorry, I know this was a bit of a spiel, but I just felt the need to get my thoughts on paper. I apologize in advance if anything I said has offended anyone, I know all too well that Politics is a sticky area, and any derogatory comment regarding America are only aimed at a select few Americans, not America as a whole. As for this miniseries, it stank! Totally unfair portral of the Soviets (in my biased opinion). They were not monsters (although they were by no means Angels either, ill admit), and lets remember that America herself sponsored many a brutal dictator in the fight against Marxism, so they were not wearing linen white either. It was completely unrealistic. If it did ever come to a US-Soviet war, both countries along with the most of the rest of the world would be dust in the blink of an eye. Mutual-Assured-Destruction works that way im afraid... :(

My apologies again about the spiel, its a form of venting for a frustrated commie like myself :(

[–] billyk5775 18 years ago

Kerry always flipped flopped. In fact nearly all of the senators and congresspersons who condemns Bush for having Iraq invaded have said earlier that Saddam should be stopped. How else can you do it? Also Hillary Clinton cannot run for president because she has all ready served 2 terms.

[–] TKA_Bnet 17 years ago

2 terms? She has been the first lady, but that's not president.

Ich brauche Geld für Gasolin.
Ich brauche Benzin!
Please do not feed the trolls.

[–] rogerscorpion 17 years ago

TKA--he was making a funny.
True--Congress approved us invading Iraq--based upon the evidence BUSH showed them. He 'cherry-picked' what he wanted them to see, tho. He omitted evidence that didn't support what he was obsessed w/doing before he was elected--go into Iraq.
Funny how 9/11 gave him the perfect opportunity.
See "The New Pearl Harbor" & "A Pretext fot War"--both books.
Also--google 'mickey herskowitz'. He is a sportscaster here in Houston--who also is a biographer. He is a close friend of Papa Bush & has written bios of several family members. Read excerpts from his aborted bio of Dubya.

Carpe Noctem

[–] yakirz 17 years ago

If Kerry had won, this would be a better place right now. Bush has *beep* up the world.

[–] billyk5775 17 years ago

Just how would this be a better place under flip flop
Kerry?

[–] deanofrpps 17 years ago

Bravo for The Bush! He must have been deceiving the Viet Cong when he desserted from The Air National Guard and later deceived the Arab terrorists when he passed water and fled on 9 - 11.

Our troops should be inspired by His courage and should emulate his choice of discretion over valour.

HA Andrews

[–] ReidJonathon3 17 years ago

The only thing i can see happening in Iraq is the troops pulling out. Iraquis don't like being occupied and the longer we are there the more regular citizens will turn to extremism. Alas more terrorists. Most of these people believe thereselves to be freedom fighters, they would rather die than surrender to American Forces. Also with the recent execution of Sadamn Hussein they have a passion in ther fighting Americans do not.