Just thought it would be interesting to take the pulse of the American JohnStoneFitness Community. Not trying to start a civil war here or anything. Please only people who are eligible to vote in the USA Presidential Election cast your vote here. Thx.

im not america (i didnt vote in the poll, so dont worry :p) but if i was american....(i'd kill myself, just kidding :p) i'd say i would have to go for kerry, bush is just an idiot, i mean, yeah, idiot, i have a low tollerance for complete fools and idiots

Kerry all the way! :tu:

Im not american, so didnt vote in the poll either, but if you guys across the pond have any sense, you will vote for Kerry, not for bush.

I wish i could vote him out, as he isnt just the leader of america, but of the whole world. America controls the world (unfortunaly), and so in effect the US president controls the world. The world is too much for someone of bush's intelligence. Everyone everywhere has to deal with his rule, not just you guys in the states. Many British soldiers went to iraq because of Bush, just to give one example. So its not just you guys it affects.

Do the rest of the world a favour and drop him for good. Only you have the power to get rid of him. Do it. PLEASE !!!! :tu:

i agree with you Reno :tu: bush has got to be the most ignorant man to ever gain access to the oval office......time to get him out!

My state will go Republican no matter how I vote, so I'm voting for Nader in hopes that 3rd party candidates will eventually get more support.

I wanted to add also, that we should try to keep this thread clean of political debate. I'd hate to see this thread go down the wrong path...

You need to add "Undecided" to the poll. I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet, though I'm leaning towards Bush. I don't agree with everything that Bush has done while in office, but I respect him for standing on his beliefs, even if they aren't popular ones or ones I agree with. At least with Bush we know where we stand and what we are getting. With Kerry, I have no idea where he stands on a lot of the issues. He seems to say one thing then do something else. Also, with the Vietnam issues, my dad is a Vietnam vet. He can't stand Kerry. My dad was telling me that Kerry along with people like Jane Fonda (my dad refuses to ever watch a movie with her in it because of what she did back then) actually gave strength to the Vietcong to continue fighting. How you ask? Well, not too long ago there was an article in Time magazine, I believe. Time interviewed an ex-Vietcong general about the war. The general said that the protesters in America (Kerry, Jane Fonda, etc..) gave them the courage to continue fighting, when they were about to give up. The general said that knowing that there were people in America that didn't support the war gave all the Vietcong the strength and courage to continue fighting. They figured that if they continue fighting that the American people would grow sick of the war and demand it to end. That's exactly what happened. Because of the protesters, many more American soldiers died in the war that shouldn't have. We have Kerry and people like Jane Fonda to thank for that. But even though Kerry is a tool and my dad has poisoned my mind about him, I'm still undecided about who I'm voting for. I probably won't make up my mind until I get to the polls.

I wanted to add also, that we should try to keep this thread clean of political debate. I'd hate to see this thread go down the wrong path...



:tu:

I wanted to add also, that we should try to keep this thread clean of political debate. I'd hate to see this thread go down the wrong path...

i second that, plenty of other places to start a war thread.

Because of the protesters, many more American soldiers died in the war that shouldn't have.

I dont think that you can blame protestors for war and the death of soldiers. When you were off fighting people in Nam, you were doing so to protect the american way of life from being destroyed by the soviet way of life, suppression and dictorship, and an end to freedom of speech. You cant then stop American people excersizing those very rights that great men like your father fought to protect.

Kerry for obvious reasons. A vote for Nader is only going to take votes away from Kerry and help Bush.

I'm going to vote for Kerry. Why? I feel that George W. is arrogant, ignorant and un-trust worthy. 3 things I don't want in my president. Will Kerry be better? That remains to be seen.

I'm not going to get into a political debate in here but...sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

id vote for bush, because i know how hell act, kerry changes his mind on every subject

my compaint with this election is how everyone is making a big deal with kerrys war record and weather he deserved his purple heart. Its not like he gave it to himself. A higher officer has to reccomend you for one and give u it, its not like kerry chose to give himself it.

I dont think that you can blame protestors for war and the death of soldiers. When you were off fighting people in Nam, you were doing so to protect the american way of life from being destroyed by the soviet way of life, suppression and dictorship, and an end to freedom of speech. You cant then stop American people excersizing those very rights that great men like your father fought to protect.

I'm a history major and I've studied this exact phenomenon in relation to Vietnam and other issues as well. Certainly morale comes in to play with any military operation and morale due to Fonda's words and action was reduced. HOWEVER! Comparing John Kerry to Jane Fonda is not on equal ground. One was a celebrity who didn't support war, the other was a WAR VETERAN (and highly decorated too, although Bush would have you believe otherwise) who objected to the war having experienced it first hand.

Wow what to choose...
1. Vote for a rich moron
2. Vote for a rich arrogant bastard
3. Vote for someone that is more qualified but will never get into office because he's not main stream

I need to update your choice of words:
Wow what to choose...
1. Vote for a rich arrogant bastard moron
2. Vote for a rich arrogant bastard
3. Vote for someone that is more qualified but will never get into office because he's not main stream

... and highly decorated too, although Bush would have you believe otherwise ...

The Purple Heart is not held in very high regard among the military. If you shed blood in a combat zone, you're eligible - whether it be a gunshot wound or a paper cut, you're eligible. I can't remember the exact name - I think it's the "Distinguished Service Medal" and of course, the Congressional Medal of Honor, that are respected when awarded for outstanding performance in a combat zone. My boss and my design tech are both Vietnam vets. They scoff pretty hard at the Purple Heart lest it truly be an injury worthy of the award.

-R

medals have been brought up my "friends of Bush" in the past and they are doing it again. what matters is the issues not this crap that is brought up to take your attention away from them. heres what matters
abortion, budget, death penalty, economy, education, gay rights, guns, health care, Iraq, social security among others. choose the candidate you feel is best based on your personal beliefs.

I think he also has some bronze and/or silver stars. How do those rank?

Not trying to flame. Just curious and don't know much about medals.

The Purple Heart is not held in very high regard among the military. If you shed blood in a combat zone, you're eligible - whether it be a gunshot wound or a paper cut, you're eligible. I can't remember the exact name - I think it's the "Distinguished Service Medal" and of course, the Congressional Medal of Honor, that are respected when awarded for outstanding performance in a combat zone. My boss and my design tech are both Vietnam vets. They scoff pretty hard at the Purple Heart lest it truly be an injury worthy of the award.

-R

I think he also has some bronze and/or silver stars. How do those rank?

Not trying to flame. Just curious and don't know much about medals.

I don't know much either; I only know what the ex-military types I work with think. From what I have gleaned listening to their conversations, the silver/bronze star are performance awards in foreign countries/situations. I believe that it must be recommended by a commanding officer, and then a panel decides which award to give or whether or not to award it at all.

-R


Forgot to add this... a friend of mine was a glorified secretary (he did weapons and equipment inventories) in Afghanistan last year. He got a bronze star, and from listening to him, all he did was schmooze with friendly locals. I don't think he so much as carried a rifle in anger in the four months he was there.

He got a bronze star, and from listening to him, all he did was schmooze with friendly locals. I don't think he so much as carried a rifle in anger in the four months he was there.
[/edit]

shit in that case i should get a bronze star for dealing with my clients every day, thats a lot more dangerous and some carry guns as well :lol:

i have to carry more than a baseball bat at all times some of the neighborhoods my asshole salespeople stomp in to sell our shit.

heres what matters
abortion, budget, death penalty, economy, education, gay rights, guns, health care, Iraq, social security among others. choose the candidate you feel is best based on your personal beliefs.

You're right, badgolfer. These are the only issues that should matter in a presidential race. But since I haven't decided who to vote for, can any Kerry supporter please explain his views on these subjects? To be honest, I have no idea what he believes, yet I have a pretty good idea where Bush stands.

Kino - Very well put...I will vote for the "devil" I know (though I dont think Bush qualifies as demonic in any fashion :-) )

KMFisher and GMEnthusiast - The least you owe someone who has to make more difficult decisions than you ever will (whether we are speaking of Bush or Kerry) is the respect not to call them bastards and idiots...gimme a break...that really drives your point home to call elected officials a bastard and defaming them with other references, gimme a break.

My vote goes to BUSH

fly_moe,

check out this site www.ontheissues.org you check out nearly anyone you can think of and see where they stand so you can make an informed decision. if anyone knows of any other sites that are not partial please post it.

^Scott^

Voting for Bush, for a number of reasons. I'll just focus on one: taxes. He's the only guy that won't screw us more than we're already getting screwed. Even have a chance at getting some tax simplification (see Speaker Hastert's recent comments).

As for the bronze/silver stars, they're a big deal. Some people might be able to game the system through connections like your glorified secretary (I'm also looking in Kerry's direction) but most military respect them in a big way. Get one of those license plates with a silver star on them (you can in VA, anyway) and you will NEVER get a ticket from any cop, ever.

Former coworker of mine got a bronze star in Vietnam. He wrote a book about his experience -- very much the real deal. Oh, and he's voting for Bush. All the military guys I know, both retired vets and active duty, are doing so as well. I live a couple miles from the Pentagon, so there's lots of them around here. :d_smile:

Bluestreak-- I don't know what you consider to be "highly decorated" outside the Congressional Medal of Honor...but lets look at it like this:
Kerry was "in-country", that is actually in a fighting zone of Vietnam, for 4 months of his tour of duty. In that time he collected 3 purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star. Thats enough for me to say highly decorated. He wasn't a draft dodger, he served his country when they called upon him to and he did so with honor.



If I could write a question for the Presidential Debate I would ask what the candidates think about anticipated threats and how to deal with them. If you anticipate a country could be, might be, or has potential to be a threat to the U.S. how should the U.S. react?

(note: this question is not pointed left or right, I'm not trying to spark controversy or anything, just a thought for those still undecided)

I'm voting for Kerry.

Both candidates have their list of negatives, but Kerry's negatives (flip-flops, controversial war record, higher taxes, etc) are not as bad in my opinion compared to Bush's (unilateral action, outright lies about Iraq, jeapordizing our constitutional rights in the name of "national security", etc).

More than Bush himself, I absolutely cannot stand certain members of his administration, especially, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. IMO, the actions of these men outweigh any negatives that Kerry brings to the table.

Just wanted to add a response to the europeans (and one Aussie) who chimed in that Bush is an "idiot." I don't think that's the case, but it reminded me of William F Buckley's great response:

"I'd rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the New York City phone directory than the faculty of Harvard."

The intellectual Hamlet-type who would be the left's choice for president would have wrung his hands, sought UN resolutions, and ended up accomplishing little in the wake of 9/11. Read the whole 9.11 Commission report and compare Clinton and Bush's reaction to the information they were given. Stark contrast.

Bush basically made it clear after 9/11 that nobody should mess with us anymore. The rest of the world hates to realize they're irrelevant, and that why Bush drives the elite nuts. It's an undeniable fact that Bush is solely responsible for eliminating the threat from three dictators, Kadaffy, the Taliban and Saddam. Bush 3, UN 0. That too drives elitists up the wall. Fewer threats beats hand-wringing any day.

That's why I'll take a decisive president over the nerd with the high SAT score.

I second that Taxcheat...But if the Fed's come around I don't know ya :whistle:

This Texan is voting Kerry!

Do the rest of the world a favour and drop him for good. Only you have the power to get rid of him. Do it. PLEASE !!!! :tu:

My Money, my Time and my Vote are trying to do just that! I live in Texas and will gladly take one for the team and welcome him back here in November.

Please bare us in mind when voting. Obviously the President of America has a lot of influence...
I hope taxes won't be the most important and deciding point when you make your decision.

The intellectual Hamlet-type who would be the left's choice for president would have wrung his hands, sought UN resolutions, and ended up accomplishing little in the wake of 9/11.

And what has he acheived since the wake of 911 ?

1. Left Afghanistan in a mess. Ditto on iraq.
2. Created more worldwide hatred toward america then ever
3. As a result of point 2, you are now more of a terrorist target then ever
4. Many US (and other nations) soldiers dead.

I could go on, point is, all this direct no nonsense action cost you a lot in terms of worldwide image. You can say you dont care, but if it were my country, and id pissed off a whole bunch of people who didnt like us in the first place, id worry.

Perhaps if you had chilled out and gone more down the road of talking, things might be different. Then again maybe not. But like any potential fight, you should talk first.

The rest of the world hates to realize they're irrelevant

That attitude sucks, and is part of the reason that your in this mess now, because seeing the rest of the world as irrelevent makes you take international threats lightly, which results in attacks to your homeland that you werent expecting. "They attacked us ? But theyre irrelevent.". Not so irrelevent really. I wouldnt call 911 irrelevent, would you ?

Also, if you say :

It's an undeniable fact that Bush is solely responsible for eliminating the threat from three dictators, Kadaffy, the Taliban and Saddam. Bush 3, UN 0.

Why isnt bush going all in to Sudan to stop the murder and rape of the millions there ? Where is the money for aid ? If your making out that Bush cares about the rest of the world, i think thats wrong. Your mistaken. Why did bush feel it necessary to help the people of Iraq (who didnt even ask for help and were in a better situation then the people of Sudan), but wont help those people in that wortorn african state ? No oil in sudan though....

Whos gonna take out the biggest dictator of all ? The guy who makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the guy who allows black people to live in third world conditions in his own country, the guy who denies money for medical cover for the poor, but then gives top fortune 500 companies massive tax breaks, despite them sacking off employies and creating mass unemployment, leading to rises in crime, poverty and drug abuse. The guy who lost a democratic election, but still conned his way into power. A man who reaps tyranny on the whole world, who listens to know one and who does what he likes? Who allows pollution on a scale so massive it outweighs any other country on the globe. Who will remove him ? ???

Whos gonna take out the biggest dictator of all ? The guy who makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the guy who allows black people to live in third world conditions in his own country, the guy who denies money for medical cover for the poor, but then gives top fortune 500 companies massive tax breaks, despite them sacking off employies and creating mass unemployment, leading to rises in crime, poverty and drug abuse. The guy who lost a democratic election, but still conned his way into power. A man who reaps tyranny on the whole world, who listens to know one and who does what he likes? Who allows pollution on a scale so massive it outweighs any other country on the globe. Who will remove him ? ???


you left out how he screwed our children out of a quality education with his no child left behind crap

I left out a whole bunch of things. ;)

I left out a whole bunch of things. ;)


True! :lol:

I don't want this thread to go into a political debate but I have to reply to this
And what has he acheived since the wake of 911 ?
???
Attacks on American civilians by terrorist have been drastically reduced. Look at these from the Clinton administration:


The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision.

They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks not meant to even hit anybody and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we did nothing about it because we didn't have a true leader in office. These unanswered attacks led directly to Sept 11. With Bush that is a lot less likely to happen again. An attack on American citizens is no longer just a suicide mission for you but a suicide misssin for your entire organization.

We are not more of a terrorist target than before because France doesn't like us. They do not believe strongly enough in their own nation to fight they are not going to attack us. The terrorist nations and regimes hated us before (largely because of our support of Israel) and they will hate us after we kill or arrest thousands of terrorist.

Perhaps if you had chilled out and gone more down the road of talking, things might be different. Then again maybe not. But like any potential fight, you should talk first.?

The US and the world did talk for YEARS. We and the world gave deadline after deadline to mr. sadam. ALL of which he ignored. Unlike many nations we did not so well ok lets give him a new deadline the UN gave him a date and we said comply or else. Unfortunately he did not comply. A ruthless dictator is now in a prison cell and a people are finally getting a chance to live the dream. To be better off than there parents, to work hard and succeed. If you ask me this is what civilized nations should do give those less fortunate a chance.


Why isnt bush going all in to Sudan to stop the murder and rape of the millions there ? Where is the money for aid ?

Unfortunately, since the rest of the world is not willing to help when it also demanded the action and promised to take decisive action we are a little busy helping another country right now. AS far as aid. I challenge you to show any nation that gives more Aid to other countries than the good 'ol USA.

Unfortunately, since the rest of the world is not willing to help when it also demanded the action and promised to take decisive action we are a little busy helping another country right now.

Erm, incase your confused, im from England, which is in Britain, which is a small island off the coast of europe, which is a continent across the atlantic, which is a large area of ocean. I knew many people, friends included who went to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so dont think your the only country to fight these wars against terror.

If one country, such as iraq, attacked you, then by all means George W, go after iraq. But your fighting wars against countries, and these countries werent the ones that attacked america. Terrorists arent represented by a country, hell, we have terrorists living in Britain, and there are terrorists living in the US. So why pick out iraq and Afghanistan. (Aherm, oil, cough... oil) To help their people ? As if Bush cares about them ! Dont give me that. He never went to their aid before Sept 11th. Because they harbour terrorists ? Erm, i dont see Bush going into Saudi Arabia, which is easily the biggest harbourer of Islamic terrorists in the world. Because of Weapons of Mass Destruction ? Erm, north Korea anyone ??? Why doesnt he go and fight North Korea, given that they are producing WMD illegally ? Perhaps because unlike the iraq's, North Korea has a bigger arsenal then throwing rocks ?

He fought these wars over oil, which in turn means money, and power. Saudi Arabia co-operates with US oil demand. The taliban did not. Iraq did not. And so thats what happens when you dont co-operate.

Dont forget our country fought with you, i aint french, but i feel this war on terror is A) unwinnable B) Fabricated to allow Bush to do whatever he likes in his homeland and C) a waste of human life

Well, looks like ive dragged this thread into a political / war debate.

DOH !!! :rolleyes:

Well, looks like ive dragged this thread into a political / war debate.

DOH !!! :rolleyes:

Sorry I contributed, to the down hill spiral

You need to add "Undecided" to the poll. I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet, though I'm leaning towards Bush. I don't agree with everything that Bush has done while in office, but I respect him for standing on his beliefs, even if they aren't popular ones or ones I agree with. At least with Bush we know where we stand and what we are getting. With Kerry, I have no idea where he stands on a lot of the issues. He seems to say one thing then do something else. Also, with the Vietnam issues, my dad is a Vietnam vet. He can't stand Kerry. My dad was telling me that Kerry along with people like Jane Fonda (my dad refuses to ever watch a movie with her in it because of what she did back then) actually gave strength to the Vietcong to continue fighting. How you ask? Well, not too long ago there was an article in Time magazine, I believe. Time interviewed an ex-Vietcong general about the war. The general said that the protesters in America (Kerry, Jane Fonda, etc..) gave them the courage to continue fighting, when they were about to give up. The general said that knowing that there were people in America that didn't support the war gave all the Vietcong the strength and courage to continue fighting. They figured that if they continue fighting that the American people would grow sick of the war and demand it to end. That's exactly what happened. Because of the protesters, many more American soldiers died in the war that shouldn't have. We have Kerry and people like Jane Fonda to thank for that. But even though Kerry is a tool and my dad has poisoned my mind about him, I'm still undecided about who I'm voting for. I probably won't make up my mind until I get to the polls.
i agree...i'm on the fence too but value a man of conviction....:confused:

oh and i have to agree that some of this 'war' is fabricated to make bush look good......however it is back-firing......im just waiting patiently. i wouldnt be suprised if we suddenly had a HUGE attack on our soil just before november and Bush swooped in to 'save' us all, thus sending everyone to the polls to vote for him....

i agree...i'm on the fence too but value a man of conviction....:confused:

Don't take this personally, but I've never understood the logic of "I value a man of conviction."

Suppose a candidate's convictions lied in the use of black people as slaves. Through thick and thin, right or wrong, he stood by his convictions. Would you vote for him?

I'd rather vote for someone who could learn from successes and failures, even if that meant changing their mind on a subject after gaining more knowledge and experiencing mistakes.

i wouldnt be suprised if we suddenly had a HUGE attack on our soil just before november and Bush swooped in to 'save' us all....


SWOON. :lol:

I'd rather vote for someone who could learn from successes and failures, even if that meant changing their mind on a subject after gaining more knowledge and experiencing mistakes.


Very, very well said. :nod:

RENO - not to continue the debate, but why do people try to make this war about oil? That may be a benefit of going to Iraq, but in the whole scheme of things Iraq holds less than 3% of the worlds oil supply. There are always two sides to a story and it seems that you are only thinking from one of those sides in your ad hoc attack on George Bush. I admittedly do not agree with Bush 100%, however not even the president and his advisors can be perfect or pre-dict the results of their decisions. What I respect is that despite that they MAKE a decision after considering it and carry it out.

You also mentioned that Bush left Afganhistan as well as Iraq in a mess...if you have not noticed we have not LEFT either of those places. While troop deployments have slowed down, I can assure you (as many of my friends and family serve in the military) that plans are in place to deploy more troops to both places in the future.

As for un-employment it is at 5.5% currently and hardly accounts for "mass unemployment", as you said, since 5.5% has been the national average over the life of the American economy and trails Great Britain by only .8%. There are slightly more jobs now than there were months prior to 9/11/01.

"Good news is not news" is the slogan used in the media. While the media reports many of the negative things that are happening over-seas and at home they leave out the great things that have happened and that are often only reported in non mainstream news sources (women voting in the middle east, Middle Eastern kids at school for the first time, basic amenities provided). I encourage you to look into some other news sources besides your British/Aussie/American mainstream media so you have some perspective...not to convince you you are wrong, but just to add some perspective.

Just a quick response -- we're getting off topic. There are two kind of leaders. The ones who care what other people think (image), and the ones that don't. Bush is the latter.

The image of America has nothing to do with our being attacked. We were attacked because (a) we're Christian, and (b) we're #1. Nothing this country does will ever pacify Islamic terrorists as long as (a) and (b) are true.

You don't bargain with terrorists, you kill them. This president has killed/imprisoned more terrorists than any other president. Appeasers like France, Germany, and Spain are the ones enouraging attacks by rewarding terrorists and giving them what they want. Their "image" is weakness, which throws fuel on the fire.

I'm voting for Kerry, and I have noticed a few things in this thread that are wrong:

Terrorism in 2003 was worse than 2002 internationally. Still lower than 2001, but 2001 was one of the worst years ever. Still the increase from 2002 to 2003 may be attributed to switching focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

The Iraq war is helping Al-Q recruit new terrorists easier:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113058224.html?oneclick=true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1063717,00.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/daniel_sneider/8771885.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

The tax cuts have actually increased the tax burden on the middle class:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

Bush is the biggest spending President ever:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

Bush repeatedly misled the world about Iraq:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Bush Campaign is making history with often-misleading attack ads:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

I have about a dozen links to Bush's environmental policies (hint: they are terrible), but I don't think anyone will defend him here.

Here are a few of the many reasons I will vote for Kerry:
- Respects gay rights - I understand he doesn't support legalizing gay marriage, but he does support civil unions. Bush on the other hand wants no rights for gay people (look at the RNC convention schedule).
- Respects the U.N.
- Will help improve our image internationally
- Is pro-environment
- Promises to help alleviate and try to stop outsourcing.
- Will get rid of the tax cuts for the rich, thus easing the tax burden on the middle class
- Will try to rebalance the budget because he is fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative.
- Is pro-choice
- Is trying to actually improve health care in our country.
- Believes in science (Bush has seriously damaged the reputation of america in the scientific communities)
- Understands what separation of church and state means
- Respects the Bill of Rights and the Constitution
- Will try to remove the Patriot Act

Democracy is a sham. Ever since the first time somebody articulated the Condorset Paradox, we all should have realized that democracy was a sham, and that if we wanted to get anything done, we should do it ourselves.

If you want to vote because it's your civic duty, fine. But rational choice theorists are right - any benefit you'll get from it will probably be a lot less than the cost unless you factor in how cool you think it will feel to have voted.

And in the age of think tanks, talking points, corporate media conglomerates, and mass brainwashing (which is so much in evidence on both sides of every internet flamewar), none of us really know what's going on anyway.

So, go teach a child to read or get in shape or something ;).

Taxcheat, you're misinformed about why the US was attacked by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

It's not because the US has Christians in the population and it's not because the US is "#1." It's because the US supports corrupt regimes in the Middle East and, most importantly, because of the *PERCEPTION* that the US has attacked Islam by supporting Israel's war against the Palestinians. This is why understanding and caring about how the US is viewed around the world is important.

The bedrock of Islamic terror and jihad is the belief that Islam (in the form of its people and its holy lands) has been attacked. This is why US forces cannot invade the mosque in Najaf, and this is why occupying Iraq in a messy and corrupt way (Abu Ghraib) was such a bad idea.


It has nothing to do with our "freedoms" or our "way of life."

TheRyanator - Great points mate, and i agree the media paint their own pictures. Its true that i do tend to look at this one sided, and perhaps there are some positives to come out of both wars. (Iraq and Afghanistan). I know its daft to say iraq was about oil, when i said that, i meant oil as in "Some other reason", not liberation. Whilst many were liberated in Iraq, i refuse to accept that was Bush's purpose in invading. If not for "Oil", then for something else.

Again, great points. :nod:

Taxcheat - Yup, sept 11th was an attack on christianity...... :rolleyes:

Taxcheat, you're misinformed about why the US was attacked by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

It's not because the US has Christians in the population and it's not because the US is "#1." It's because the US supports corrupt regimes in the Middle East and, most importantly, because of the *PERCEPTION* that the US has attacked Islam by supporting Israel's war against the Palestinians. This is why understanding and caring about how the US is viewed around the world is important.

The bedrock of Islamic terror and jihad is the belief that Islam (in the form of its people and its holy lands) has been attacked. This is why US forces cannot invade the mosque in Najaf, and this is why occupying Iraq in a messy and corrupt way (Abu Ghraib) was such a bad idea.


It has nothing to do with our "freedoms" or our "way of life."

100% agreement.

Perception is everything.

I'm voting for Bush because I like John Wayne, Apple Pie and the American way of life.. :D





Just thought I'd throw in a little humor to this ....since we are really only here to learn and become better people.. Threads like this are poison... and should never happen it has nothing to do with this site..

I hang at another musician forum and this stuff isn't aloud there.. and it has over 41,000 registered members.. As I've said before lets Agree to disagree.. and shake hands

I'm voting for Kerry because I hate America and should just move to France.

:D

100% agreed w/CASD.

If you guys are up for it, we can start a political debate thread. Just as long as everyone agrees to keep it civil. It think its fair game since this is the Off-topic forum, after all. What do you guys think?

CASD I welcome this kind of discussion on a site like John's...as long as it is in the OFF TOPIC forum. If it showed up in FAT LOSS I would have an issue with it for sure, however the fact the this forum is labeled OFF TOPIC so people enter at their own risk and do not have to read the contents. As long as it is posted in the proper forum I see no reason to dis-allow it. It actually makes my friends that I have gotten to know on this board more 3 dimensional as you get to know where they stand on things other than their latest "progress pics" I certainly would say lets keep the main thing the main thing and that is encouraging eachother to continue to work towards our fitness ambitions.

I was just worried about people gettting down on others outside of this thread,,
But I see your point.. :tucool:

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I am the type who can walk away from a debate or discussion and not have it effect the way I treat people outside that discussion...good point though, I certainly understand where you are coming from.

Its great to have a clear picture about what you want to do and accomplish, but what if your picture is skewed from the start? Sure, I know where Bush stands on all the issues...but is he standing in a vantage point that gives him the best view?

The Iraq War isn't about oil, thats ludacris..the war is about the anticipation of a threat. Iraq posed no threat to the USA (and if you think they did, take a look at Korea really quickly and decide who you think REALLY poses a threat...why not march in to Korea too?) and yet we attacked before they could pose a threat. In addition, many people like to make the "harboring terrorism" claim..but the USA has more terrorists than any other nation, and many times they're not Islamic extremists either (as it seems thats who Bush wants: Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.). Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kascinzski were the two most prominent terrorists before 9/11, both were white. Afghanistan is one direction I thought was relatively necessary, and I'll give Bush his due for going after Bin Laden and Al Quaida specifically..HOWEVER, Saddam Hussein is NOT Osama Bin Laden, so why him? Why now? What did the USA do to rid the world of Pol Pot, of Kim Jong-il, of the hundreds of African warlords that have decimated parts of Africa (in particular the Ivory Coast)...the question remains, why Iraq?

No flame, no nothin', sorry to open up old wounds or what not, I just wanted to point out the various facets of war and global conflict and the implications on this election.

Its great to have a clear picture about what you want to do and accomplish, but what if your picture is skewed from the start? Sure, I know where Bush stands on all the issues...but is he standing in a vantage point that gives him the best view?

So how do you choose who to vote for? I am willing to bet that the presidents vantage point is better than most people and certainly better than any of ours.

badgolfer - Great point!

So how do you choose who to vote for? I am willing to bet that the presidents vantage point is better than most people and certainly better than any of ours.

Maybe you should read what I wrote all over again, because the "vantage point" here isn't literal its figurative..it went with the "clear picture" analogy...but since you asked...

I choose based on what I value. For example, I value open and accepting people in to a community rather than shunning them. In terms of gay rights, I think President Bush's sought after constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't fit in with my values. Is the presidents vantage point better or worse than mine? can we define this value in terms of better or worse? I don't believe we can. Its not about the President having a thousand advisors out there that can give him a clearer picture.

My point (which I think you missed) was this:
Its been debated that Bush "is a man of convictions" whereas Kerry "flip-flops." Even in these forums we've debated this issue. The question was "Is sticking to your convictions a good thing or a bad thing?" My answer is that if your convictions agree with what I consider to be "right" then it is a good thing, if your convictions are those which I consider to be "wrong" its a bad thing.

In this case, Bush has a clear view of what he wants to accomplish: eliminate homosexuality, help to bring religion back in to a more public forum, start and carry on foreign wars at the expense of our nations youth, give tax breaks to the rich, increase military spending and decrease education spending, stop terror by killing potential terrorists before they become terrorists, drill for oil in Alaskan national parks, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, its very clear where Bush stands and what his goals are...is it as clear with John Kerry, absolutely not. In fact, I've recently heard Kerry isn't in support of gay marriage either, and I'm not sure if he'd bring an end to war or not...so, while I know where Bush stands and I'm hazy on where Kerry stands, I know that according to my PERSONAL values, Bush's vantage point is skewed, his picture of America is one that I disagree with, and so its pretty obvious I'm not going to vote for him.

To quote Bill Maher:

"Okay, let me ask, this virtue of being resolute. I agree that, you know, when it comes to what a guy stands for, it is easier to say President Bush stands for this and the other guy, Kerry, straddles. I mean, on death penalty, on abortion, on gay marriage, you’re right, I know where Bush stands. But what if a guy is resolute, but wrong? You know, he’s got this great clarity about Iraq. But what if the picture that he’s looking at is the wrong picture? Then clarity isn’t such a good thing."

Maybe you should read what I wrote all over again, because the "vantage point" here isn't literal its figurative..it went with the "clear picture" analogy...but since you asked...

I choose based on what I value. For example, I value open and accepting people in to a community rather than shunning them. In terms of gay rights, I think President Bush's sought after constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't fit in with my values. Is the presidents vantage point better or worse than mine? can we define this value in terms of better or worse? I don't believe we can. Its not about the President having a thousand advisors out there that can give him a clearer picture.

My point (which I think you missed) was this:
Its been debated that Bush "is a man of convictions" whereas Kerry "flip-flops." Even in these forums we've debated this issue. The question was "Is sticking to your convictions a good thing or a bad thing?" My answer is that if your convictions agree with what I consider to be "right" then it is a good thing, if your convictions are those which I consider to be "wrong" its a bad thing.

In this case, Bush has a clear view of what he wants to accomplish: eliminate homosexuality, help to bring religion back in to a more public forum, start and carry on foreign wars at the expense of our nations youth, give tax breaks to the rich, increase military spending and decrease education spending, stop terror by killing potential terrorists before they become terrorists, drill for oil in Alaskan national parks, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, its very clear where Bush stands and what his goals are...is it as clear with John Kerry, absolutely not. In fact, I've recently heard Kerry isn't in support of gay marriage either, and I'm not sure if he'd bring an end to war or not...so, while I know where Bush stands and I'm hazy on where Kerry stands, I know that according to my PERSONAL values, Bush's vantage point is skewed, his picture of America is one that I disagree with, and so its pretty obvious I'm not going to vote for him.

Nicely put, LemonSong. I agree 100%. Especially w/ your take on the whole War on Terror.

i think we have a different definition of vantage point. to me the information that Bush has forms his vantage point. information that you or i are not privelaged enough to have. (even hough the information on Iraq was wrong whomever was in office would have been given that same information creating his or her vantage point)what you are saying is you dont agree with Bush and i dont all of the time either. my point was to vote for the candidate that you agree with on the most points(or on the points you feel most strongly about)

i think we have a different definition of vantage point. to me the information that Bush has forms his vantage point. information that you or i are not privelaged enough to have. (even hough the information on Iraq was wrong whomever was in office would have been given that same information creating his or her vantage point)what you are saying is you dont agree with Bush and i dont all of the time either. my point was to vote for the candidate that you agree with on the most points(or on the points you feel most strongly about)

Once again. Please re-read what I said...my initial comments were an analogy not meant to be taken literally. The analogy was:

Its great to have a clear picture about what you want to do and accomplish, but what if your picture is skewed from the start? Sure, I know where Bush stands on all the issues...but is he standing in a vantage point that gives him the best view?

Is he STANDING in a vantage point that gives him the best VIEW of the PICTURE that may or may not be skewed? This has nothing to do with top secret information. These are figurative comments and your definition is the same as mine, but it is the literal definition.

I guess I just dont understand your analogy. It must be me. I really shouldnt get into political threads anyway. I just am not good at debating.

I remind those who buy the idea that , "the attacks will stop if the US stops supporting Israel" this is a conflict that raged long before Israel was founded in the late 40's. It goes back to the Crusades and the founding of Islam itself.

Ah, but the only thing worse that a political thread is a religious one! So allow me to quote directly from the 9-11 Report, which despite being politically correct (embracing the Islam as a religion of peace sham), quite clearly states that Osama's main goal is to convert the West to Islam (from Christianity).

"Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering singlemindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,” and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam."
...
"Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb.... no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan."
...
"Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture:“It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”

Ah, but the only thing worse that a political thread is a religious one! So allow me to quote directly from the 9-11 Report, which despite being politically correct (embracing the Islam as a religion of peace sham), quite clearly states that Osama's main goal is to convert the West to Islam (from Christianity).



Let me remind you, in case you aren't clear on this: OSAMA BIN LADEN DOES NOT REPRESENT ISLAM!!!

I live next door to a Mosque, I interact with Muslims on a daily basis, they aren't terrorists. They DO preach peace, and having studied the Koran myself I've come to the same conclusion. Sure, they want to convert people to Islam just like the Mormons that go door to door around here...so whats wrong with that? Their religion teaches them to seek world unity through religion. Should every religious group be defined by their most extreme factions? Do you think that Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists, and Hindu terrorists don't exist? Is it just Islam that you seem to believe is out to end the world?

I really feel sorry for you and those who share this closed-minded opinion, its the deepest form of pity I have inside of me...not only have you shut your mind off to any type of real in depth education at what other cultures and other people believe and not only are you intolerant of those other beliefs, but you've bought in to the anti-Islam sentiment in America that leads to hatred and bloodshed against Muslims (see: Iraq and Afghanistan). Please, PLEASE educate yourself and try to find love in your heart rather than hatred.

No one on this thread has said “the attacks will stop if the US stops supporting Israel.”

Under Islamic law, which bin Laden has to use somewhat to gain followers, it is wrong to attack without first warning your opponents and giving them the chance to convert to Islam. No doubt terrorism is a total perversion of religious law, and no doubt the warnings were general, largely ignored, and of no practical use to anyone killed on 9/11. But these warning are where the talk of conversion comes from. It’s a terrorist’s perverse way of “clearing it” with Islam.

Conversion is not the goal of the war itself.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/2217513/detail.html

Is this the center in your hometown? People who are terrorist are associated with Islam. A very small percentage. Just as it is a very small percentage of Americans who carry out hate crimes against Islam. Unfortunalely the hate crimes and arrests are what makes the news. It is easy to see how people can jump to conclusions.

Just to be clear I should add that in no way do I condone any hate or hate crimes against anyone.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/2217513/detail.html

Is this the center in your hometown?

Yes, thats about 2 blocks south of me. I'd read that report several years ago, but had forgotten about it...who knows what that guy really did...There was some FBI stuff going on here around that time, but the Jill Behrman (if anyone knows about this or saw Americas most Wanted last week cool, if not she was kidnapped and killed while riding her bike south of town) case was also being investigated by the FBI so it wasn't really clear what exactly they were doing here.

I still hold my position. Its unfortunate that a miniscule minority of religious extremists bring dishonor to the millions upon millions of peaceful Muslims.

I still hold my position. Its unfortunate that a miniscule minority of religious extremists bring dishonor to the millions upon millions of peaceful Muslims.

absolutely hold your position. i completely agree with it as do 99.9% of Americans. it the other .1%...

Ross Perot

This will be the last bomb I toss into this thread. My one-word comment about Islam was not based on hatred of any individuals it was based on a study of history. Since I better not say anything in my own words this time, I'll just point at two things:

First, the Jews that Mohammed enslaved/beheaded at Bani Quraytha.
original source material (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/had.html#m1769). This is history, not opinion or emotion.

Second, I point to opinion -- an article by that guy who has a death sentence pronounced upon him in the middle east for the crime of writing a best-selling fiction novel:

Salman Rushdie NY Times article (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm)

That's all I will say, because religious discussions are way too dangerous! Peace to all of you.

This will be the last bomb I toss into this thread. My one-word comment about Islam was not based on hatred of any individuals it was based on a study of history. Since I better not say anything in my own words this time, I'll just point at two things:

First, the Jews that Mohammed enslaved/beheaded at Bani Quraytha.
original source material (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/had.html#m1769). This is history, not opinion or emotion.

Second, I point to opinion -- an article by that guy who has a death sentence pronounced upon him in the middle east for the crime of writing a best-selling fiction novel:

Salman Rushdie NY Times article (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm)

That's all I will say, because religious discussions are way too dangerous! Peace to all of you.


Look at your sources:
www.faithfreedom.org
and
http://answering-islam.org.uk

Ask yourself..are these legitmate sources on the topic? Who is the audience for this writing? Why does the author chose to write about his topic? etc. etc. etc.
Critical reading leads to critical understanding. In this case both have been bypassed.

I think the vote here will reflect the polls released this coming weekend.

The article I link to was published in the New York Times (as my message indicated). If you'd like to pay for the privilege, you can read the exact same words on their archive site.

The other link gives the text of original Ahadith -- including the Arabic text -- it is not commentary. Again, I mentioned this in my original post. You're welcome to order a print copy of them (eg, Oxford University Press publishes a volume) and look up the passages if the URL is somehow offensive.

As I said before, I'm done with the topic. Not much interest in a real exhange of ideas -- always happens to religious & political Internet discussions.

Taxcheat,

Religious and political threads become soured when people drop bombs. What's the point you're trying to make? Clearly stating your argument and then making your opinion known would be a good starting place. Right now, it seems like you want to hint that Islam is .... what...?

My point is that US foreign policy is not the source of terrorism. By that I mean, appeasement (pulling out of the middle east) wouldn't change anything. It would just create new demands. The relevance to the thread is that it can only be properly dealt with in the way the Bush administration is doing so -- by killing/imprisoning the terrorists one by one until they no longer threaten us.

I only brought up Islam in reference to the 911 commission report, but a look at Islam's history -- especially the life of Mohammed -- does help put what's happening now in context. I will not make any new points, but people like Winston Churchill never fell for the appeasement trap:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=137

I don't think we should appease terrorists either, I just don't think (as you seem to) that all terrorists are Islamic and that Islam needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.

The problem with terrorism doesn't come from one source or from one reason. Look at the likes of the Unibomber (white by the way, last I checked...). Why did he do what he did? Was it to end some kind of U.S. policy? I never suggested "pulling out" of the middle east, I suggested taking a closer look at the motives for entering in the first place.

Terrorism isn't something you can stop. You can take precautions, but trying to "end" terrorism is nonsensical...how could it ever be possible? Certainly the Patriot Act would have you believe that simply taking away constitutional rights, violating prisoners rights, and denying our citizens legal recourse is the end all be all of ending terrorism before it infiltrates every area of American life...but the fact remains...you can't stop terrorism.

Do I think we should appease Saddam? No way. Do I think it was necessary to toss diplomacy aside and begin an imperialist-style military campaign in Iraq? No way. Do I think there are nations that pose a MUCH larger threat to the United States? yes. Do I see my government protecting me from nuclear developed, trigger happy, dictatorships (N. Korea I'm looking in your direction....)? No. My question remains: Why Iraq? Why now? Why not N. Korea?

If you'll read my comments from past posts, I gave GWB support in terms of Afghanistan campaigns. The point was to stop a terror organization. We had a specific target, and a specific purpose. I felt bad for Afghans because their country has been the source of war for more than 1/2 the 20th century and now the 21st as well, but I felt that it was necessary action for the U.S. to undergo. Find justice. With Iraq, that justice is hazy. There are at least 10 dictators in the world and in terms of how "bad" they are Saddam was somewhere in the middle...I want to see Mr. Bush take some action in Africa, and specifically I'd like to see something done to take care of N. Korea. I've seen neither. N. Korea, which actually HAS!!! WMDs, is considered an idle threat, and I wonder sometimes if we've really come so far from labelling Africa the "Dark Continent" as they need more aid than anywhere else in the world in terms both militarily and financially, so where is our support for Africa?

Those of you who are voting for Bush, I'm asking you (this is not a flame) Why Iraq? Why now? Why not N. Korea? Why not Africa?

Working hard and fast toward a Palestinian state and ending support of tyrranical Middle Eastern regimes isn't appeasement, it's justice.

Comparisons to WWII and Churchill don't apply very well here, because terrorism doesn't have a state. Bush has said that he doesn't think much about America's number one enemy anymore. Why not? I believe he's using outdated strategies by going after a traditional enemy with an army: Iraq. Once their army was defeated, Bush made the unforgivable mistake of sending all the soldiers home. They became insurgents and terrorists. This is one of the ways the war in Iraq has made the world less safe. Bin Laden is still at large. This isn't the same as fighting Germany.

i agree with you Reno :tu: bush has got to be the most ignorant man to ever gain access to the oval office......time to get him out!

I will not vote for the shrub! His arrogance is through the roof and he is a liar not to mention dumb as rocks. If you think Kerry flip flops you should check out the flip flops that the shrub has done...

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263


Mick

I will not vote for the shrub! His arrogance is through the roof and he is a liar not to mention dumb as rocks. If you think Kerry flip flops you should check out the flip flops that the shrub has done...

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263


Mick

While this is certainly a bias site, I think it sheds light on the "flip-flop" vs. "mind change" argument. Politicians should be flexible not stagnant in their political decisions. What is right at one time, may not be right even days later due to the ever changing global village we live in...Bush, Kerry, or whoever, if they're a politician chances are they've changed their mind. This "flip-flop" argument Kerry-bashers like to use, is nonsense.

Also, I specifically liked the portion discussing Bush's plans for N. Korean disarmament (which never came to fruitition). Am I the only one thats concerned about N. Korean nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States (and can actually make it here, unlike ANYTHING in Iraq..)??? I remember getting goosebumps when there was a shooting in the neutral zone thinking that it could spark WWIII...apparently my government doesn't think they're a threat, but I'm smart enough to evaluate and realize that its truly the most scary of all international hotspots in terms of the U.S. (as the Kashmir is the most scary international hotspot overall!!)...

Anyway, interesting article Mick.

Also, I specifically liked the portion discussing Bush's plans for N. Korean disarmament (which never came to fruitition). Am I the only one thats concerned about N. Korean nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States (and can actually make it here, unlike ANYTHING in Iraq..)??? I remember getting goosebumps when there was a shooting in the neutral zone thinking that it could spark WWIII...apparently my government doesn't think they're a threat, but I'm smart enough to evaluate and realize that its truly the most scary of all international hotspots in terms of the U.S. (as the Kashmir is the most scary international hotspot overall!!)...



Don't worry too much. Thanks to Bush, we pulled out of the SALT treaty and now we are building a huge national Anti-Ballistic Missile System. I think construction began a few years ago and was recently tested with good results.

They ARE paying attention and trying their best to keep anything like that from happening.

I think construction began a few years ago and was recently tested with good results.

The construction has not begun and overall tests have been major failures. All tests on somewhat real dummy missles have failed. The only successful tests have come when they attach a sensor to a large weather balloon.

Note:
- missles do not have this sensor
- missles move much faster than a weather balloon
- missles are smaller than a weather balloon

Overall this program has been a huge waste of billions of dollars (8+ B per year) since they have thrown full support behind it. That isn't to say that it won't be successful someday, but the money could be much better spent. These developers need to get back to basics and develop a scale working model first, then ask for more money. Instead they came in with a flawed system, asked for billions, and Bush took the bait hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not a US cit and forgive me for jumping into this here. I was bored, so I ran to the end and I happened to read only a couple of paragraphs, but I feel I should comment on Also, I specifically liked the portion discussing Bush's plans for N. Korean disarmament (which never came to fruitition). Am I the only one thats concerned about N. Korean nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States (and can actually make it here, unlike ANYTHING in Iraq..)??? I remember getting goosebumps when there was a shooting in the neutral zone thinking that it could spark WWIII...apparently my government doesn't think they're a threat, but I'm smart enough to evaluate and realize that its truly the most scary of all international hotspots in terms of the U.S. (as the Kashmir is the most scary international hotspot overall!!)... This is a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation. Bush called NK a part of the axis of evil. I think that such a comment is prudent. However, I don't recall him ever really mentioning a plan to disarm them. They are very intent on enhnacing their military, even though their economy continues to be a joke and living in that country sucks for many of the people there.

But, what is Bush to do? Beyond the obvious fact that invading NK would be harder than Iraq, threat of nuclear response aside, NK is not a world hot spot now as Iraq has been for the past couple of decades.

Moreover, and absolutely worth mentioning is: Do you think that Bush could gather a couple hundred thousand troops and send them to NK and suffer the political consequences? Already the democrats despise the man, and most of the rest of the world cannot stand him either (if the rest of the world could vote, which it can't thankfully, they'd vote in Kerry before Bush come Nov 2). The heat and flak he's already gotten for Iraq would be nothing compared to launching yet another frivolous - as many would claim it to be - invasion. There are other ways to deal with NK, but not really any ways that would work. As with the case of Hussein, Kim Jong Il would rather stay isolated, as long as he knows that he can't be touched because he represents too much of a threat to those who'd see him out of power.

Personally I've always thought the idea of an ICBM shield is a great one. No it's not working yet, but it will. Even if this one is thrown in the bin, eventually the technology will be there. It may not be able to protectve against dozesnf of incomings at once, but ultimately it will nullify the thread of otherwise pissant nations like NK trying to lob a couple of missiles at the US. A nuclear war repreents the greatest threat to the planet and I would love to see in the future an ICBM net so expansive around the entire globe that ICBMs basically are no good anymore. Hey I can dream :)

I'm not a US cit and forgive me for jumping into this here. I was bored, so I ran to the end and I happened to read only a couple of paragraphs, but I feel I should comment on This is a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation. Bush called NK a part of the axis of evil. I think that such a comment is prudent. However, I don't recall him ever really mentioning a plan to disarm them. They are very intent on enhnacing their military, even though their economy continues to be a joke and living in that country sucks for many of the people there.

But, what is Bush to do? Beyond the obvious fact that invading NK would be harder than Iraq, threat of nuclear response aside, NK is not a world hot spot now as Iraq has been for the past couple of decades.

Moreover, and absolutely worth mentioning is: Do you think that Bush could gather a couple hundred thousand troops and send them to NK and suffer the political consequences? Already the democrats despise the man, and most of the rest of the world cannot stand him either (if the rest of the world could vote, which it can't thankfully, they'd vote in Kerry before Bush come Nov 2). The heat and flak he's already gotten for Iraq would be nothing compared to launching yet another frivolous - as many would claim it to be - invasion. There are other ways to deal with NK, but not really any ways that would work. As with the case of Hussein, Kim Jong Il would rather stay isolated, as long as he knows that he can't be touched because he represents too much of a threat to those who'd see him out of power.

Personally I've always thought the idea of an ICBM shield is a great one. No it's not working yet, but it will. Even if this one is thrown in the bin, eventually the technology will be there. It may not be able to protectve against dozesnf of incomings at once, but ultimately it will nullify the thread of otherwise pissant nations like NK trying to lob a couple of missiles at the US. A nuclear war repreents the greatest threat to the planet and I would love to see in the future an ICBM net so expansive around the entire globe that ICBMs basically are no good anymore. Hey I can dream :)


The point is to do something POLITICALLY not MILITARILY. Listen to your comments...the only thing you can think of to resolve this issue is to discuss military action, missile defense shields, and more conflict. There are diplomatic resolutions that can help to scale down conflict rather than bringing it to affront.

I watched the Republican Convention and I remember Gov. Schwarzenegger said something along the lines of "You're a Republican if you're more interested in the U.S. running things than the U.N." While I'm not a proponent of the UN in all aspects of global conflict, this is a perfect example. There are diplomatic ways to scale down conflict in the U.N., either by repromand economically or by international pressure. No country wants to feel bullied, and your solutions seem to be nothing other than bullying. I'm looking for someone to open relations with NK, I want to see Bush take a trip over there and talk to Kim Jung-Il and see what can be accomplished.

You claim that NK is not a world hotspot...why do we have troops stationed there? Why is there a de-militarized zone? Why is policy there leftovers from the Korean war? Why then is it the only country with nuclear capacity, within range of the U.S. that is part of the Reaganite "axis of evil"? That arguement doesn't hold water. NK is a hot spot. I'm shocked sometimes that more Americans are unable to take a global view point of the world, rather than an exclusively U.S. view...you refer to NK as a "pissant" nation, you ridicule its economy, etc. but these are reflections of your closed minded view of the U.S. as supreme nation of the world. People are people and I still love 'em no matter of race, religion, or national origin! (especially the women)

Also, ICBM shield? Lets be real here...what do you think this will cost? Certainly Reagan and both Bush's have had very little problem taking money away from programs that help standard of living and putting it toward military costs...but what do you think about raising taxes for ANOTHER military action? How long will Americans stand by as their education funding bleeds dry? What we need are open minds, open hearts, diplomacy, and understanding in place of the militaristic, imperialistic, bullying...then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about alienating ourselves to a point of autarky again. I'm sure some of you have no problem with allowing 1000 combat troops to die in Iraq, no problem with the 87 BILLION (lets look at this figure again 87,000,000,000...) dollars we've put in to Iraq, and no problem using their tax money to do it...but I do.

I can think of a lot of ways that 87 billion dollars of further debt could have been used. Furthermore, I can think of a lot of ways that 87,000,000,000 could have been used that didn't KILL people. Can anyone else speculate as to how they'd like to see their government spend that money?

The point is to do something POLITICALLY not MILITARILY. Listen to your comments...the only thing you can think of to resolve this issue is to discuss military action, missile defense shields, and more conflict. There are diplomatic resolutions that can help to scale down conflict rather than bringing it to affront.

I watched the Republican Convention and I remember Gov. Schwarzenegger said something along the lines of "You're a Republican if you're more interested in the U.S. running things than the U.N." While I'm not a proponent of the UN in all aspects of global conflict, this is a perfect example. There are diplomatic ways to scale down conflict in the U.N., either by repromand economically or by international pressure. No country wants to feel bullied, and your solutions seem to be nothing other than bullying. I'm looking for someone to open relations with NK, I want to see Bush take a trip over there and talk to Kim Jung-Il and see what can be accomplished.

You claim that NK is not a world hotspot...why do we have troops stationed there? Why is there a de-militarized zone? Why is policy there leftovers from the Korean war? Why then is it the only country with nuclear capacity, within range of the U.S. that is part of the Reaganite "axis of evil"? That arguement doesn't hold water. NK is a hot spot. I'm shocked sometimes that more Americans are unable to take a global view point of the world, rather than an exclusively U.S. view...you refer to NK as a "pissant" nation, you ridicule its economy, etc. but these are reflections of your closed minded view of the U.S. as supreme nation of the world. People are people and I still love 'em no matter of race, religion, or national origin! (especially the women)

Also, ICBM shield? Lets be real here...what do you think this will cost? Certainly Reagan and both Bush's have had very little problem taking money away from programs that help standard of living and putting it toward military costs...but what do you think about raising taxes for ANOTHER military action? How long will Americans stand by as their education funding bleeds dry? What we need are open minds, open hearts, diplomacy, and understanding in place of the militaristic, imperialistic, bullying...then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about alienating ourselves to a point of autarky again. I'm sure some of you have no problem with allowing 1000 combat troops to die in Iraq, no problem with the 87 BILLION (lets look at this figure again 87,000,000,000...) dollars we've put in to Iraq, and no problem using their tax money to do it...but I do.

I can think of a lot of ways that 87 billion dollars of further debt could have been used. Furthermore, I can think of a lot of ways that 87,000,000,000 could have been used that didn't KILL people. Can anyone else speculate as to how they'd like to see their government spend that money?
I would like to see 87B spent in a way that makes the world safer. Perhaps going to the most dangerous area in the world and helping establish two democracies that in time will show the rest of the people in that region what could be. But that is just me

They are attempting to use diplomatic means in NK. They are not talking about it because they don't want to screw up the progress.

The point is to do something POLITICALLY not MILITARILY. Listen to your comments...the only thing you can think of to resolve this issue is to discuss military action, missile defense shields, and more conflict. There are diplomatic resolutions that can help to scale down conflict rather than bringing it to affront.

I watched the Republican Convention and I remember Gov. Schwarzenegger said something along the lines of "You're a Republican if you're more interested in the U.S. running things than the U.N." While I'm not a proponent of the UN in all aspects of global conflict, this is a perfect example. There are diplomatic ways to scale down conflict in the U.N., either by repromand economically or by international pressure. No country wants to feel bullied, and your solutions seem to be nothing other than bullying. I'm looking for someone to open relations with NK, I want to see Bush take a trip over there and talk to Kim Jung-Il and see what can be accomplished.

You claim that NK is not a world hotspot...why do we have troops stationed there? Why is there a de-militarized zone? Why is policy there leftovers from the Korean war? Why then is it the only country with nuclear capacity, within range of the U.S. that is part of the Reaganite "axis of evil"? That arguement doesn't hold water. NK is a hot spot. I'm shocked sometimes that more Americans are unable to take a global view point of the world, rather than an exclusively U.S. view...you refer to NK as a "pissant" nation, you ridicule its economy, etc. but these are reflections of your closed minded view of the U.S. as supreme nation of the world. People are people and I still love 'em no matter of race, religion, or national origin! (especially the women)

Also, ICBM shield? Lets be real here...what do you think this will cost? Certainly Reagan and both Bush's have had very little problem taking money away from programs that help standard of living and putting it toward military costs...but what do you think about raising taxes for ANOTHER military action? How long will Americans stand by as their education funding bleeds dry? What we need are open minds, open hearts, diplomacy, and understanding in place of the militaristic, imperialistic, bullying...then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about alienating ourselves to a point of autarky again. I'm sure some of you have no problem with allowing 1000 combat troops to die in Iraq, no problem with the 87 BILLION (lets look at this figure again 87,000,000,000...) dollars we've put in to Iraq, and no problem using their tax money to do it...but I do.

I can think of a lot of ways that 87 billion dollars of further debt could have been used. Furthermore, I can think of a lot of ways that 87,000,000,000 could have been used that didn't KILL people. Can anyone else speculate as to how they'd like to see their government spend that money?

Hehe. I disagree with just about every point in this post. I always find it funny the value people put on money when discussing politics. I also find the selective use of American service people's deaths to prove some lost point sort of disappointing.

The point is to do something POLITICALLY not MILITARILY. Listen to your comments...the only thing you can think of to resolve this issue is to discuss military action, missile defense shields, and more conflict. There are diplomatic resolutions that can help to scale down conflict rather than bringing it to affront.Unlike a military response, diplomacy requires the cooperation of both parties. Typically this requires both parties to have at least a semblance of reason. I call NK a pissant nation because politically and socially it is. I can think of few places I'd rather live. They have a large military but at the expense of everything else. Kind of reminds me like the soviet union. The US and other nations send food to NK because Kim would rather starve his people than buy a few less guns. People like him, hussein, hitler, etc. lust for control to such an extent that they are difficult and often impossible to reason with. A diplomatic solution is best, but I'll be surprised if it reaps much in the way of rewards. The ultimate goal is for NK to abandon their nuclear weapons program. In a world where Indian, and Pakistan have quite recently become nuclear powers, and other nations are trying, NK absolutely will not let go of the idea.I watched the Republican Convention and I remember Gov. Schwarzenegger said something along the lines of "You're a Republican if you're more interested in the U.S. running things than the U.N." While I'm not a proponent of the UN in all aspects of global conflict, this is a perfect example. There are diplomatic ways to scale down conflict in the U.N., either by repromand economically or by international pressure. No country wants to feel bullied, and your solutions seem to be nothing other than bullying. I'm looking for someone to open relations with NK, I want to see Bush take a trip over there and talk to Kim Jung-Il and see what can be accomplished.When I first heard of the "Get the US out of the UN" I considered such talk scary by isolationist nutheads. But, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense - not necessarily to get the US out of the UN, but to treat the UN more in line of what it is: a paralytic entity seemingly incapable of instigating real change. The Iraq war was a perfect example. Resolution after resolution ignored, and still the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions. To me, and millions of others, that was a beacon screaming of the UN's incompetence. When you have so many unlike minded entities trying to work together you end up with nothing done. Another perfect example would be the Sudan now where thousands are being killed, and yet the UN continues to bicker and dick around, scared sh*tless at offending anybody. The UN is a bureaucratic mess. In regards to economic demand and diplomatic pressure we've a recent example of how that doesn't work: look at Iraq? It had all the pressure in the world, with some brand spanking new resolutions, and yet it did nothing. The only thing that people like hussein respond to is the threat of might. Amazingly, he was such a freaking nut case that even that didn't do anything to him - or maybe he knew that the UN was all talk, and hoped beyond hope that the US wouldn't go it alone. He made the wrong bet though!You claim that NK is not a world hotspot...why do we have troops stationed there? Why is there a de-militarized zone? Why is policy there leftovers from the Korean war? Why then is it the only country with nuclear capacity, within range of the U.S. that is part of the Reaganite "axis of evil"? That arguement doesn't hold water. NK is a hot spot. I did downplay it too much, you're right.I'm shocked sometimes that more Americans are unable to take a global view point of the world, rather than an exclusively U.S. view...you refer to NK as a "pissant" nation, you ridicule its economy, etc. but these are reflections of your closed minded view of the U.S. as supreme nation of the world.I do think that the US is among the best nations in the world. There are several other nations I'd quite happily live in though, like Canada and the England. I feel pity for those who have to live under Kim in NK, but you don't see Canadians jumping on to boats and trying to smuggle themselves into NK, or the French making a mad dash for Spain to free themselves of the oppression in their nation. Places like NK are relative hellholes, killing/torturing, offering little in the way of a hopeful future. That's why I call it pissant. The beauty of Western nations is that our forefathers learned years and years ago about freedom for the people. NK, African countries, those in the middle east, etc. are still living far in the past and haven't learned the lessons that we're lucky enough to benefit from.Also, ICBM shield? Lets be real here...what do you think this will cost? Certainly Reagan and both Bush's have had very little problem taking money away from programs that help standard of living and putting it toward military costs...but what do you think about raising taxes for ANOTHER military action? How long will Americans stand by as their education funding bleeds dry? What we need are open minds, open hearts, diplomacy, and understanding in place of the militaristic, imperialistic, bullying...then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about alienating ourselves to a point of autarky again. I'm sure some of you have no problem with allowing 1000 combat troops to die in Iraq, no problem with the 87 BILLION (lets look at this figure again 87,000,000,000...) dollars we've put in to Iraq, and no problem using their tax money to do it...but I do.I'm disgusted at Bush's love to spend. I think that the deficit is utterly out of control. In terms of 87B, I guess that's what it costs. Unfortunately leaving Iraq now would be a poor choice, and they'd revert back to the crap they were before. I think that inserting a true democracy there is a pipe dream. The mentality of the people in that country is so totally different than that of us that we can't really understand it. We naturally tend towards a system where the individual has rights, we have some control over our lives, etc, but that's utterly foreign to those in Iraq, and it is unfortunately a lesson probably best learned by earning it, rather than being given it. BTW the US has always been disliked to a degree, and always will be. That is a greater degree now, but the big boy on the block is always going to be scorned, and will always have his detractors. I think that the US does a decent job. Imagine if the Soviets were the only super power in the world right now?

Does might make right?
Can you force freedom on someone?
Just because we're mighty militarily, are we right to overthrow the Iraqi government because we don't like Saddam? Some might say "Well Saddam was a dictator, etc." But as I've pointed out in many posts...Saddam was a dictator, so what? The U.S. doesn't care about places like the Sudan (as you pointed out) only the U.N. does, thats why I question the motives. North Korea is a perfect example. In my opinion, Kim is MUCH worse than Saddam, so why not attempt to make it a democracy? Is it because we have reverted to Cold War politics (as you seem to like to use the Soviet issues)? Is it because Iraq has something we want? I really can't figure this one out...
I hear this WMD debate all the time, and the fact remains...NK has WMDs, Iraq never did (as the UN advisors proved countless times, even if you think they do nothing they certainly proved this one long in advance), so as I keep asking (and Republicans have no answer): Why Iraq? Why now? What do we have to gain? What do we have to lose?

You're right when you say that lost lives always come up in these kind of debates, but the reason I brought it up is in the answer to those last two questions. We have nothing to gain from Iraq. NOTHING. We have thousands of U.S. lives to lose, and 87 billion dollars of taxpayer money to lose. Thats a lot to ask of our citizens, and for what? I'm not a big fan of the UN, but at least its a diplomatic channel. If you want to make the argument that the U.S. has a safer Middle East, or one less dictator, why is this beind done in Iraq rather than in many of the other places around the world where this kind of oppression/torture/etc. goes on? Why Iraq? Why now?

The first Gulf War had to do with protecting Kuwait, and I can see that that was an undertaking worth involvement and more of the international community was willing to participate. With Afghanistan, I praise Bush for involvement. We had a direct enemy that had attacked us and we retaliated by going after the Taliban and other terror organizations (this was not a war ON the Afghans). So I'll give the Bush's credit for the first Gulf War and for the Afghan campaigns.

In terms of your response that diplomacy takes reason and cooperation, I agree. Dealing with dictators is a difficult subject. However, I'd like to think that the U.S. can learn from its historical mistakes. What doesn't work are Bay of Pigs type operations (funding the opposition to attack). What doesn't work are Vietnam type operations (establishing a puppet government with a different dictator, in this case Diem, who we like better and then waging total war on the country in order to set up a fake democracy so we can go to bed feeling safer at the expense of others). What doesn't work are Iraq campaigns where there is no particular goal, no end in sight, no possiblity of a faux-government functioning properly. What does work you ask? Well, thats a hazy question. My feelings about NK are that the U.S. needs to open up diplomatic relations. Invite Kim to Camp David and sit down with him and try to coerce him in to allowing economic aid and creating better relations between the two nations. Will that work? Maybe not at first, but these aren't immidiate solutions. These are solutions that take generations, and in the mean time we continue to send food and etc (In my dreams, even use our 87billion for projects like this rather than on our own WMDs).

We're in agreement that the U.S. is one of the best countries in the world in terms of freedom and standard of living. However, does that make it more important than the rest of the world? My answer is no, it doesn't. My life is no more important than any Iraqi life, N. Korean life, French life, etc. Life=Life. John Kerry is willing to pull out of Iraq, and he's got my vote. No more Iraqis should be killed (as their lives are no better than American lives) and no more Americans should be killed. John Kerry will be a peace president and Bush will be a lame duck with blood on his hands and conscience!

The construction has not begun and overall tests have been major failures. All tests on somewhat real dummy missles have failed. The only successful tests have come when they attach a sensor to a large weather balloon.


Hmm...I don't know but I guess I am getting different information than you are.

Here are a few good reads...

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
or in particular..
http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/n07232004_2004072304.html

and.....

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missile_test_update_010715.html

search around google a bit and you can find some better links maybe

sorry about this :o it is my field of work, so I have a bit of a biased opinion on it :p

John Kerry is willing to pull out of Iraq, and he's got my vote. No more Iraqis should be killed (as their lives are no better than American lives) and no more Americans should be killed. John Kerry will be a peace president and Bush will be a lame duck with blood on his hands and conscience!

So you feel that war is never justified? You don't feel that freedom is worth the risk of loosing lives.

I guess that is a fundamental difference between those that seem to feel that in your opinion feel "America is more important" and those that don't. For many of us America = Freedom. And to protect freedom for our country and to provide the opportunity to others is worth the cost of war.

From a financial standpoint the US has nothing to gain from Iraq. In the scope of things the much talked about no bid contract are meaningless to the companies and the US. What the world has to gain from this war is establish two democracies that in time will show the rest of the people in that region what could be.

So you feel that war is never justified? You don't feel that freedom is worth the risk of loosing lives.

I guess that is a fundamental difference between those that seem to feel that in your opinion feel "America is more important" and those that don't. For many of us America = Freedom. And to protect freedom for our country and to provide the opportunity to others is worth the cost of war.

From a financial standpoint the US has nothing to gain from Iraq. In the scope of things the much talked about no bid contract are meaningless to the companies and the US. What the world has to gain from this war is establish two democracies that in time will show the rest of the people in that region what could be.

War can be justified, absolutely. I never said it couldn't be...just not this one. In economic terms, theres not much in it for us from Iraq (although a stabilized middle east will lower oil prices,b ut this isn't a major issue at all...read my previous posts on this).

You say that we're going to establish a democracy...are we? Do you think it will work? I don't. Look at Israel...they're a democracy...did the rest of the Middle East say "Hey, look at that! Israel/US really has something good going on here..." I don't think so! It sounds really great to think that we'll somehow start a democracy and everyone will live happily ever after, but lets be clear on something: YOU CANNOT FORCE FREEDOM!! These are countries with thousands of years of function without democracy, and a U.S. puppet government and faux-democracy is going to crash and burn.

In addition, these issues are much more complex. Not only are we refering to places that have no history of democratic ideals, but there are religious, social, and idealistic reasons that democracy will fail in the Middle East. How would you like it if someone came to the U.S. and said "Everything you're doing is wrong, and we're going to wipe out your government and put new people in power and in time you'll learn how to deal with it!" How would you react to that? Even if you felt oppressed and there was relief from oppression, how would you react? Americans don't like to think about that. They like to think "This is for freedom, and freedom is important!" A blanket statement, nonetheless, but thats exactly what your argument is..."Freedom is good; Iraq has less freedom than the U.S. so lets wage war, kill their people, occupy their country, set up a new government of people the U.S. likes (a foreign nation thousands of miles away that doesn't understand Iraqi culture, doesn't want to, and has no ties to the region) and then spend trillions (I really wish this were an exaggeration, but its not) on keeping them in a state of limbo at the expense of our own people." Sound justified to you? Not to me.

You also claim that killing people (both Iraqi and American) is justification for preserving freedom at home. It amazes me that the same Republicans who talk about idealistic freedom for Iraq are the same who are opposed to reproductive rights for women and civil rights for homosexuals. In addition, lets not forget the Patriot Acts that curtail your basic constitutional rights every chance they get!

John Kerry has seen war that wasn't justified. Apparently, Mr. Bush has not. No justice, no peace.

From a financial standpoint the US has nothing to gain from Iraq. In the scope of things the much talked about no bid contract are meaningless to the companies and the US.

This is just flat-out, plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. :d_frown:

You say that we're going to establish a democracy...are we? Do you think it will work? I don't. Look at Israel...they're a democracy...did the rest of the Middle East say "Hey, look at that! Israel/US really has something good going on here..." I don't think so! It sounds really great to think that we'll somehow start a democracy and everyone will live happily ever after, but lets be clear on something: YOU CANNOT FORCE FREEDOM!! .
Israel is a whole different animal. If you look at news sources that are out of the mainstream you will see that the Iraqi people crave freedom and the majority support the effort. We are not forcing freedom we are giving people the OPPORTUNITY to be FREE.


same who are opposed to reproductive rights for women and civil rights for homosexuals. In addition, lets not forget the Patriot Acts that curtail your basic constitutional rights every chance they get!
These are whole different animals that are more religious and moral and less about freedom or opression. John Kerry also "publically" is against these things. Of course that is just because he is trying to be Bush to get elected.

I would be happy to debate this with you since we are both relatively level headed (not that I really know you but just an assumption from your other posts) but I'm afraid bringing up the reasons on a public forum could cause a lot of trouble. This is just too heated of an issue.



From a financial standpoint the US has nothing to gain from Iraq. In the scope of things the much talked about no bid contract are meaningless to the companies and the US.



[QUOTE=sheldonlanghorne]This is just flat-out, plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. !
I can get the actual numbers if you need them but the US economy is trillions of dollars the billions that will be made/spent in Iraq are meaningless in the long run. The US could have taken the money and given haliburton(sp) a lot more money to do something domestically if that is what it was about. This was not about money it could have been about long term protection of oil. It could have been about doing what daddy couldn't. It could have been about removing a horrible dictator to make the world a safer place, but it was not about short term financial gain.

I agree that this is not about getting money into the US Treasury. But it is partly about money for private contractors. Your statement about how the government could have given Halliburton the same money for domestic projects is part of the reason so many are angry about Iraq. That 200 Billion could have been spent in better ways. The other problem about the domestic option, though, is that Republicans would say, “It’s not the government’s job to spend money in this way (domestically).” Also, a domestic project would have required a bidding process. Halliburton, who made so much money during the first war against Iraq is simply doing business again. The war did away with the bidding process. So, in short, the private companies are the ones making the dough in this war, and many of those companies have ties to the people in government who decided to go to war and handed out the rebuilding contracts.

I’ll throw in a different topic related to the election: Bush and Congress are allowing the Assault Weapons ban to expire. This is another reason I dislike the current administration.

I’ll throw in a different topic related to the election: Bush and Congress are allowing the Assault Weapons ban to expire. This is another reason I dislike the current administration.

thats my biggest beef with the administration right now. they wont even vote on it. they say they wont get enough votes to extend the ban. i just dont understand at all why people would need to buy assault rifles.

thats my biggest beef with the administration right now. they wont even vote on it. they say they wont get enough votes to extend the ban. i just dont understand at all why people would need to buy assault rifles.Because, while the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee that people have to interpret it as it was intended, when it was written. :confused:

Israel is a whole different animal. If you look at news sources that are out of the mainstream you will see that the Iraqi people crave freedom and the majority support the effort. We are not forcing freedom we are giving people the OPPORTUNITY to be FREE.

These are whole different animals that are more religious and moral and less about freedom or opression.


2 points to be made here:
1-- Sure, Israel is a whole different animal, but its still a modern democracy in the Middle East and its not setting any kind of precedent (which was my point, as the previous post claimed Iraq would set a precedent for democracy..I'm literally lol right now thinking about this...).
2-- Which news sources outside of the mainstream? Ones with conservative bias that would have you believe that the Iraqi people love U.S. occupation? If this is true, how come they've killed more U.S. troops since the war ended than they did when the war was going on? Sure, they might love freedom, but not at the price of occupation by a foreign power. If we're not forcing freedom, then now that the old regime is gone why not pull out of Iraq and let them have freedom? Why is it necessary to continually pour money and guns in to the area now that Saddam is gone?

See...once again...it sounds great to say that we're giving them an opportunity at freedom, because thats a noble cause. I won't sit here and tell you I don't want to see world freedom, human rights, and etc. I'm just not willing to say that the means in this particular case are going to justify the end. The U.S. has tried and failed at this exact process over and over and over (I'm a history major in 20th century U.S. history, and trust me we do this ALL the time). We tried it with the Spanish-American war (failed), we tried it with Vietnam (failed at the expense of 58k U.S. lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese), we tried it with Cuba and the Bay of Pigs, the list goes on and on.

As John Kerry said, war should be a LAST resort. In the case of Iraq certainly not all the diplomatic and international outlets were utilized. I will not criticize Afghanistan's campaigns because those were valid entailing swift military action against an organization and simultaneous military, diplomatic, and economic action was taken. I praise the Bush admin. for thier swift action in handling Al Quaida and so forth...but as I keep posting over and over again: Why Iraq? Why now? Doesn't seem like there are great answers for those questions...why doesn't this bother Republicans?

Also, in terms of assault rifles...no kidding! Lets see what James Brady has to say about that...

Somehow this administration is interested in curtailing rights to privacy, search and seizure, due process, and rights of the accused..but they're leanient on the right to own an AK-47...real smart guys, real smart!

2 points to be made here:
1-- Sure, Israel is a whole different animal, but its still a modern democracy in the Middle East and its not setting any kind of precedent (which was my point, as the previous post claimed Iraq would set a precedent for democracy..I'm literally lol right now thinking about this...).I think it's because, as I mentioned earlier, the idea of a free society is just so totally foreign to most people in the middle east that they simply can't get their heads around the practical consequences of it. As condescending as it may sound, it reminds me of the old guy in the shawshank redemption who is freed and ultimately kills himself, because he doesn't know what to do with himself anymore. There's more going on here of course, but you see what I'm getting at. If we're not forcing freedom, then now that the old regime is gone why not pull out of Iraq and let them have freedom? Why is it necessary to continually pour money and guns in to the area now that Saddam is gone? I guess there's a gray line between ensuring that you've offered somebody a real chance at freedom, and actually beating it into them. Clearly if the coalition left now Iraq would fall into a greater pitt of despair than it's already in, although we've yet to see if the coalition is doing more than propping it up; will anything more significant come of it?

Sadly you're right - I can't think of a single case where the US has actually installed a democracy anywhere. I do believe wholeheartedly that it's the most englightened and superior form of government, but while I'm making references to movies, it's like in the matrix (last time I used movie references in a thread somebody kept making fun of me!) - morpheus couldn't tell neo what was going on - neo had to find out for himself with the infamous blue pill. Democracy has been fought for and earned in other countries, and never successfully given as a gift.In the case of Iraq certainly not all the diplomatic and international outlets were utilized.I think that pretty well everything was tried. In some ways it could have been better to just let Iraq fester, and when when Hussein really got his nukes and tested one out on wherever, avert our faces while baghdad is nuked.Why Iraq? Why now? Doesn't seem like there are great answers for those questions...why doesn't this bother Republicans?Well, there was popular support for it. Anything that gets votes is a great move for the gov't, regardless of the moral strength of the action. Obviously now it's not going to be getting the Bush admin any votes. The UN had been pressing Iraq for a long time about its resolutions and if Bush had of found tons of WMD then it would have been a wonderfully successful move on his part. Oust a dictator and take a bunch of illegal WMD at the same time. It would have been an awesome popularity boost. That's one reason. Another could be that people's lust for blood wasn't satiated with afghanistan. Many people deluded themselves into thinking that Hussein had late night romps with bin laden, so it gave them a black and white reason to support the attempt. Another reason could be purely altruistic: getting rid of saddamn and doing something good. This isn't the main motivator of US foreign policy, but I think it's a bigger one than most other nations. Americans do want others to experience the freedom that they have a taste of.[/QUOTE]

Personally I supported the idea of the war. I knew that WMD wasn't a sure thing. I never considered Iraq a threat to the US, and I won't pretend it did. Hussein, even if given a half dozen nukes, wuold never have used them. And supplying weapons to terrorists? He isn't that dumb. They use them, a link is found, and he would find his country fried. For me I liked the idea for two reasons: 1) People like hussein should not be in this world. 2) I hated seeing the UN picking its ass while its resolutions were ignored. That undermines the UN's might and influence. Terribly, the resolution wasn't even enforced by the UN.

2 points to be made here:
1-- Sure, Israel is a whole different animal, but its still a modern democracy in the Middle East and its not setting any kind of precedent (which was my point, as the previous post claimed Iraq would set a precedent for democracy..I'm literally lol right now thinking about this...). !
Israel is not a muslim nation that is all that matters to them. We are not occupying them, we are helping them create the peace from the very few that oppose freedom. Iraq can be a beacon to say the Iranian people that are living under a similar regime. Maybe by seeing that another muslim nation can be free they will have the courage to overtake their leaders. Then again maybe not. Either way we are giving them the oppotrunity
2-- Which news sources outside of the mainstream? Ones with conservative bias that would have you believe that the Iraqi people love U.S. occupation? If this is true, how come they've killed more U.S. troops since the war ended than they did when the war was going on? Sure, they might love freedom, but not at the price of occupation by a foreign power. If we're not forcing freedom, then now that the old regime is gone why not pull out of Iraq and let them have freedom? Why is it necessary to continually pour money and guns in to the area now that Saddam is gone? !
Unfortunately, FoxNews also spends the majority of their time reporting bad news also. Bad news sales so they focus on that. But hey why not it is all true if michael moore and cnn say so any media that would dare show something pro-America must be biased.
We are helping fight against the last remaining secs that do not want to see freedom in the Middle East. We are not occupying we are just helping them until they are able to do it all themselves. This is very similar to what we did after the world wars.


As John Kerry said, war should be a LAST resort.

I think what John Kerry said is that if we were attacked by terrorist he would respond accordingly. Personally, I think the only way to fight terrorism is on the offensive. But since we don't have a lot of evidence on this lets just examine history. Look at wars in which other countries have seen a danger and attacked before it built and look at WWII in which everyone new Germany was dangerous but just hoped they would not attack.


In the case of Iraq certainly not all the diplomatic and international outlets were utilized.

Really, the difference between Iraq and say korea is the time in which we had given Iraq. Over and over the UN gave d