[Doomed1]

Bush. For. Re-election. Three terrible, terrible words!!!

Must I go into detail?

This post has been edited by Doomed1: 28 September 2004 - 04:00 AM

[Cspace]

Did anyone ever wonder why France and Germany (not necessarily these countries but that area) were against us going into Iraq? Why they weren't going to help us at all? Obviously what Saddam was doing in Iraq was wrong, so why wouldn't they help us? We found evidence that Iraq was buying essential materials needed to make bombs from the area I just mentioned. That area of the world is having money problems so obviously they would take it and be against us going in there and cutting off that part of their income.

I would really wish some stopped pointing fingers and playing the blame game with the world. Some wonder why the world hates the U.S., personally I don't see why they can't! Our junior-high politics, namecalling, and hasty resolutions are not good... Stirring up the hornets' nest, rattling our sabres, treating the U.N. like it doesn't exist (a "debating society"? ), and treating those against the war as idiots are not commonly looked highly upon.

Until there is concrete evidence of this, this point should not hold water.

Just 3 or 4 days ago Iran stated that they would continue on with the bomb procedure. So, Bush was right to think that they had bombs, but he came to early for them to make them. I for one voted for bush on this pole.

We went to war with Iraq, not Iran. Iran was much more likely to have bombs (we almost knew they did), but we went after Iraq... why? Perhaps a personal rivalry? Economy? Attacking terrorists in Iraq who are more concentrated in other countries? Removing the power of a dictator who is of such danger to the world?

If President Bush wanted to go after a terrible dictator, there are others who are worse. Again, why did we go to war?

Why can't the President answer that directly?

If Kerry is a "flip-flopper", then why did President Bush change the reason for the war many times just to justify it? At first it was to find nukes. They haven't been found, and President Bush can't possibly make a mistake, now can he? So he changed the reason to stop terrorists. This didn't turn out too well, since stirring up the hornets' nest does include the bombing in Spain and other plans. Anyway, after all this, the terrorists just picked up and moved to other countries. Now that they're scattered, I don't see why this war is doing anything other than getting them angry. They captured Saddam... and what did he have to do with 9/11? Nothing, not even President Bush will directly say that Saddam did. So what else? To "free" the people there and give them democracy? Give democracy to three factions warring with each other for religious reasons? Not that easy. What about this civil war that we're bringing upon them? If you think we're hated by them now, just wait until they go to war with each other because of us.

(This is just something I heard and I'm not sure if it's true.)

Then why would you base anything on that? If you are not sure of it, why would you use it as justification to vote for President Bush?

****************************************************

Here are some questions for anyone:

- Just because a cure for genetic diseases is not just around the corner, does that mean that we should not pursue it (as was the justification given by the first lady)? If something which can save thousands of lives cannot be obtained in just a few years, is it just not worth researching? If that's the case, forget all this, a cure for cancer, the progressive independence from fossile fuels, or even the economy for that matter.

- Why were President Clinton's personal "issues" grounds for impeachment when President Bush can declare war over an intuition? I mean, that's acceptable when a Jedi senses a disturbance in the force, but last I knew that was just fiction... (I'm not, by any means, saying that President Bush should be impeached, just making a general point)

- Should the Vietnam War have any place in a presidential election in 2004? If anyone should avoid this area of debate anyway, it should be President Bush, for at least Kerry went to war (and volunteered to do so on top of that).

Here are some comments:

- We're not all going to die as a result of either candidate being elected... Something could happen, we never know, however the purpose of "terrorism" is to create fear. I wish some people would stop talking about the next four years as the apocolypse or something, and then say how we beat the terrorists. That's like getting a super-sized Big Mac and a diet Coke.

- Again, just because something is said a lot doesn't mean that it's true.

- Just because two points are joined together in a speech doesn't mean that they are physically linked (for example, Saddam and 9/11). That's a strategy used to mess with the minds of those listening, (don't mean to get scientific here...) but the brain seeks connections with everything. As an example of how this is used, I'm sure that you've heard that Saddam and 9/11 were linked and may have considered it yourself, but did President Bush ever actually say that? Using two different subjects to make one single point in this way creates the same effect as lying... just without the lying part. It is like saying "Deaths in car accidents are up. The public should know the potential danger of air bags." Air bags can kill people if they are too close or too young, true. However, is that statement saying that air bags are the cause of the increased deaths? It would sound like it, it was obviously intentionally said that way (probably to make a point), but no, it isn't actually saying that. It would be worded that way to get around having to lie to obtain the same effect.

- Who are the terrorists? The terrorists who went after us and other countries thought they were doing the right thing, just as we do. What we're doing is forcing a mindset on them through force. Can't this be compared to Stalin, Hitler, and the Crusades? I'm not saying that the terrorists were right, I'm saying that we're dealing with them in an entirely wrong manner. I just don't see how attacking a country is attacking the terrorists. I mean, if that's the case, we should attack ourselves too because we're "harboring" terrorists as well.

[mvtaylor]

well even though im from britain its a choice between a rock and a hard place i think.

i mean kerry just bangs on about how bad bush is and about how he is a vietnam vet. *shudders and remembers corny salute*

Bush though has atleast shown he can..sort of be president and has some policies...on the other hand a program in our country portrays him as an idiot

this clip is a bit old but heres what people think of him as click here

or some video clips here

or here

or here

NOTE - These clips are not meant to be insulting..just illustrating my point if some one kindly points out that they would like them removed they will be

[Star Jedi]

but we went after Iraq... why?

Iraq was a terrorist country that hated the US and was torturing thousands of citizens. They even used their own weapons of mass destruction on them. Firstly, we knew we could win a war with Iraq quickly. Iran has a more powerful military... BUT it also has a well educated society that wants freedom. So we can deal with Iran differently. Oh, yeah, and besides, where are our troops? You know that our troops are right now in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iran is in the middle of the two. And since they want freedom, we can secretly talk with the people on the sides of Iran and start reforming on the sides having Iran totally surrounded. Best move to make, IMO.

They captured Saddam... and what did he have to do with 9/11?

Bush gave the same reason to go to war as Kerry did. Kerry said that Iraq is a terrorist country with mass destruction weapons and needed to be taken out. Not only did we think they had weapons, but about everyone in the surrounding countries thought Saddam did also... Which was perfectly reasonable. He had acted like he was hiding weapons. He had even used them before. Fortunately he didn't, but regardless, needed to be taken down, and I'm glad he was. He was planning the weapons; he was just waiting for the right moment to make them, and definitely would have given them to terrorists around the world.

- Should the Vietnam War have any place in a presidential election in 2004? If anyone should avoid this area of debate anyway, it should be President Bush, for at least Kerry went to war (and volunteered to do so on top of that).

Kerry has a terrible record on national security. The only reason Vietnam was brought up was because that Kerry was a 'hero'.. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an issue. Yeah, he served in the war, got a few scratches, and filled out forms to get his hearts. But he came back and became a war protestor. He accused the people he worked with and made them look like criminals. He really just lied to everyone. Our prisoners of war were tortured for what he did. Vietnam really wouldn't have been an issue if Kerry hadn't made it the center point of his campaign.

If the first term was handled so you could be re-elected, will you do anything differently during your next term when re-election is no longer an issue?

Yeah, there will be differences. I believe if Bush is re-elected then he can be a better president than before. Now that re-election isn't an issue, he doesn't have to worry about the polls, etc. He can do what he thinks is right to protect what we stand for without interruption. I trust in his ability to do so.

Edit: Sorry I have targeted mostly you, Cspace, but I needed to get that out No offense.

[Darkness]

Everyone remember that no human is perfect. In my opinion, Bush has had the hardest presidency for the last however many years; what with 9/11, Iraq, and other things. If we had had an irresponsible president who couldn't handle any of this, then we woulda been sunk. Also, keep in mind that if we hadn't done something about Saddam Husein and 9/11, many more lives would have been lost, both in Iraq, and in the U.S. Saddam would have kept on torturing people who opposed him in Iraq, and other terrorists would have taken advantage of our lack of retaliation.

[Cspace]

Iraq was a terrorist country that hated the US

They hated the U.S. because of our support of Israel. The terrorists who hated us were not just in Iraq, but they were all over the region. A good number of them were in Saudi Arabia also, our supposed friends according to President Bush's propagandists. I believe that Saddam was even our friend at one time during the Cold War. A huge number of terrorists were in Iran as well, who does have weapons of mass destruction (as we knew before).

The country of Iraq, itself, is not a terrorist country. There are terrorists there, but that combined with a dictator does not make the country the embodiment of the terrorists themselves. You can attack the country, the terrorists flee and do their things in the name of religion against us. While instead, we can go after the terrorists and we can take care of them without going to war against an entire country.

Doesn't it sound more sensible to go after the terrorists, continue the search for nukes with the U.N., and maybe use politics to bring about positive change throughout an entire region (and take care of Saddam under different and more realistic circumstances actually to our benefit)? Ideas which are accepted are much more quick to change a person than force to bring about change against one's will. If they want to embrace democracy we can help them, but if they fight it is it really what they want? Are we just shoving it down their throats because it is better in our mindset?

Firstly, we knew we could win a war with Iraq quickly.

Has it been won? They're on the edge of a civil war and we think they can have a decent election so soon? Three religiously warring factions maintaining a fair election forced upon them by an overseas power? Thousands of them have died because of us, some consider us enemies in the name of religion, and a civil war is close to breaking out, and they will embrace freedom? We're going to be in Iraq for years before any of this begins to really take place to the point where we can leave. I really wish that President Bush would make more realistic claims.

You know that our troops are right now in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iran is in the middle of the two. And since they want freedom, we can secretly talk with the people on the sides of Iran and start reforming on the sides having Iran totally surrounded. Best move to make, IMO.

For a change to naturally be brought about due to this we would have to wait a very long time (a country with one mindset for hundreds of years will not naturally change in a few from passive outside influences). Ideas don't need to be joined by political borders to spread, if the President wants to bring democracy to them why can't he do it without force if they want it? If they want it, we can assist them (even if it involves providing troops), but we don't need to reform their country for them. If force is required in something like this we failed, it should be a last resort in any circumstance unless you're Rome, and if you're Rome you should be motivated by expansion - a path I hope we don't follow because it will lead to major problems in time.

Having two forces on both borders on our side is only really useful if taking over Iran... And if it is planned right now it really wouldn't surprise me.

Kerry said that Iraq is a terrorist country with mass destruction weapons and needed to be taken out.

That was when the President claimed that they existed, and at that time he did not earn himself any credibility problems. When the search continued with no traces the President went to war on an intuition, claiming that he was 100% correct the whole time and never admitting a mistake. At least Kerry can change his opinion if things don't turn out as expected. I would rather a President think than continue down a path that he knows is wrong and not admit it...

Besides, it is a little tough to make a concrete plan of attack on a subject which is kept 50% secret. If Kerry promises one plan of action, is elected, and discovers that something is not quite as expected, he would not be able to change or he would be drawn and quartered by the numerous bloodthirsty politicians who are against him (just as happened to Clinton over his personal issues).

He had acted like he was hiding weapons. He had even used them before.

Is that justification to go to war, or justification to find them? If they are found (or the materials in process of building them), many countries would join us in disarming Saddam because a real threat would exist. President Bush jumped and went to war, none have been found, and the entire world hates us. In my opinion if he could be a little more patient none of this mess with the war would exist right now. Now we're in it and it has to be dealt with, but I just don't know how so many can trust the President to handle this politically-motivated situation.

Fortunately he didn't, but regardless, needed to be taken down, and I'm glad he was.

But in what manner? I don't mind him being taken down, there are others who are worse, but I won't complain about that. He could have been taken down without throwing our country into a crisis, scattering the terrorists (making it harder to stop them), childishly chastising those who wouldn't help, and negatively flipping our foreign relations.

and definitely would have given them to terrorists around the world.

Is it "definite"? If he did the entire world would crush him because doing so would be a threat to everyone.

He accused the people he worked with and made them look like criminals. He really just lied to everyone.

Unfortunately... Many (if not all) claims were true. They were bad from our perspective but the Vietnam War really changed people. The Vietnam War was a mess. If you'd like a good representation, I'd recommend the movie Platoon. Many veterans in similar situations say that that was very close to reality. It was bad what was done, but I don't blame the soldiers due to the given circumstances that they were in.

I believe if Bush is re-elected then he can be a better president than before. Now that re-election isn't an issue, he doesn't have to worry about the polls, etc. He can do what he thinks is right to protect what we stand for without interruption. I trust in his ability to do so.

That's possible, I won't say it's not. But he can also bring about some less popular concepts such as expanding the war past Iraq or bringing back the draft. These are things which could be planned but would never be touched before the election in hopes of re-election, but after which could be pursued with less fear of loss of power. If he plans to go after Iran or other places such as *shudders* North Korea, a draft is very likely and many will hate him for it.

Edit: Sorry I have targeted mostly you, Cspace, but I needed to get that out  No offense.

No worries about that, by posting in Debate I have to expect it and I actually welcome it. Sorry to you and others about me being so direct, I'm just debating the issues, not coming down on individuals...

If we had had an irresponsible president who couldn't handle any of this, then we woulda been sunk.

We are not that weak, we can weather through a few bad Presidents. A President can only really be so bad for the country, too, because one branch cannot take over and ruin the nation in just four years.

Also, keep in mind that if we hadn't done something about Saddam Husein and 9/11, many more lives would have been lost, both in Iraq, and in the U.S.

I'll break this down into parts:

"Saddam Hussein and 9/11" - Does handling 9/11 involve Saddam? Why did 9/11 invoke our attacks against him instead of the terrorists themselves, who actually did bring about the disaster?

"both in Iraq" - There is no way to tell what Saddam would do, but we have killed thousands of them... many innocent. Such is the result of war, something which should never have resulted from the independent actions of the terrorists. We could have avoided this mess and removed Saddam with the support we need, but we wrongly jumped.

"and in the U.S." - Don't mean to bring up parallel universes again to make a point, but do you have proof that we would be attacked again? Please show me a headline of an attack that would have happened if we did not go to war. Keep in mind that not going to war does not mean not taking action.

Saddam would have kept on torturing people who opposed him in Iraq

Along with the many other dictators of the world. If that is our reason for attack, it would be a very dangerous precedent; politically it would mean that we should go after all of them, and if that happens we are in trouble...

and other terrorists would have taken advantage of our lack of retaliation.

Against who did we retaliate? Saddam or the terrorists? We gave the terrorists an opportunity to move elsewhere under the radar while we were occupied with handling Saddam. Now that he is gone and Iraq is in a mess, the terrorists hate us even more... and worse of all, who the devil knows where they are now?

"Are we safer now than before 9/11?"

[Traver]

Just a quick question: What does "the draft" mean?

[Cspace]

Just a quick question: What does "the draft" mean?

Systematically selecting men (and some are trying to get women as well) between age 18 and I believe 26 to join the military against their will.

[Danny Wells]

Blow the middle-east to pieces, before it's too late!

[©allum]

About the bomb thing.....

Did anyone ever wonder why France and Germany (not necessarily these countries but that area) were against us going into Iraq?

Western Europe having Financial problems?

I don't think so.

Please read my post before you start critisising it.

Cspace has made some fantastic points in my opinion...

This post has been edited by Leftyy: 03 October 2004 - 01:07 AM

[Star Jedi]

Iraq is a flood point of the terroists. And they flood there because they want us to fail, since the last thing they want is a democracy built up in their own backyard. There had to be a first move; I'm not sure if it's the wisest decision to let the terroists make the first move.. Also, after Saddam was taken down a point was made by the US that we will not tolerate the making of weapons of mass destruction. One of our used-to-be great terrorist enemies, Libia, realized this. They gave up their weapons... An actual dominoe effect.

Meh, President Bush will go all out for our protection. Heh.. Kerry wants a 'permission slip', a global 'Listmus Test' from the opposing side before he takes action. The terrorists would really like Kerry to be elected, because they know he won't be as hard as Bush is to get by. This is what I am seriously afraid of.

[Cspace]

There are those in Iraq who will behave as terrorists; abduct enemies (executing them), suicide bombs, and whatever else... But they're doing it to defend what they had, as well as take the opportunity to go after their old enemies without fear of Saddam (it is not just the U.S. that they are attacking in Iraq). Right now there is anarchy, and if they don't like us there, they make it known. They are not the ones who will come over here and bomb a building, however, they are attacking us in their own country.

Our real threats such as Osama are elsewhere now, those who want to attack the U.S. who really want to cause "terror" here are not going to stay in Iraq. They have scattered. Attacking a country is not attacking the individuals who we consider terrorists. Attacking a country is attacking a government. We have eliminated their government, but the catch is (that I can't believe was not foreseen...) that they are rejecting democracy, further increasing the support of the terrorists and causing more problems there... potentially even more than when Saddam was in power.

While, if we wish to go after the terrorists, we can do that directly without declaring war on a country (even those within the country). What we did is like attacking certain South American governments to stop the independent production of illegal drugs. It is the same exact concept. We attacked a government to stop the independent illegal practices of its citizens.

Why not attack ourselves for the same reason? There are American terrorists too, if we should attack a government to stop them why would ours be different?

***************************************************

It is not the concept of democracy that makes them hate us. The hate of us that the terrorists have is based in religion and the fact that we are supporting their enemies. Democracy doesn't make them hate us, they may or may not want democracy but they don't hate us due to the concept. What makes the hate more widespread is that we are forcing it on them, causing turmoil, and possibly starting a civil war...

And while we're worrying about Iraq, what are we doing about the terrorists? I really don't see how we're attacking the terrorists. We invaded Iraq and killed or captured a few. After a while we got Saddam. Months have passed and the battles go on in Iraq. What did we do about Osama, who actually was the one behind 9/11? I don't understand how easily propaganda has flipped 9/11 and turned it into a personal war blatantly against the wrong enemy. I don't want to hear about how this war has absolutely no basis in revenge or politics, for if it weren't for those I severely doubt any of "Gulf Wars: Episode II" would have happened and this would have been handled properly.

I'm not sure if it's the wisest decision to let the terroists make the first move..

Neither do I... But in Chess, is it always wise to only think one move ahead? Is it always wise to bring out the Queen in the beginning of the game to merely take out one of the Knights? Should you be going after the Knight when a Rook is waiting for that move? Should you completely disregard the lonely Pawn who, upon reaching the other side of the board, could become a Queen and end the game?

Is it wise to concentrate on Iraq when Osama is planning another attack? Should you eliminate Saddam because he seemed menacing while one slips through who bombs a building at home, like the Pawn who slips through when concentrating on the menacing Knight?

Is our first move the right move?

I think not.

The terrorists would really like Kerry to be elected, because they know he won't be as hard as Bush is to get by.

And yet what damage has he done to the terrorists other than get them angry, give them their support at home, and give them yet another reason to attack us?

If President Bush actually focused on the terrorists I would agree with you completely. But he did not focus on the terrorists. If the President could get his priorities straight and actually go after the threat we actually would be safer now.

Kerry seems to want to go after the terrorists, not expand the war. If we are going to be safer, why not go after those who want us dead? Kerry cannot make the final decision about a plan of action until he is elected (if he is) and has the information on which to base his actions, I am just glad that he seems to actually be thinking about it and is able to admit that previous decisions were wrong... unlike the President who is constantly re-justifying the war.

Kerry's issue is the terrorists and managing the war which President Bush created, the President's issue is bringing democracy to Iraq by next year which will never be possible and stable so soon. Please tell me what will make the U.S. safer. Please tell me which will make the world safer. Please tell me which is stopping the terrorists, and which is playing "Mr. Nice Guy" to bring peace to a country for quite political reasons?

Do we want someone close to home who is impulsive, conventional, and ruthless... or someone who is intelligent that can probably make better decisions? Do we want our President to be like the every-day person, or do we want someone who is actually suitable for the highest position in our country and arguably much of the world? I wish some would think about that.

Anyone can say, "They attacked us, let's strike back." While, on the contrary, it takes someone of at least above average intelligence to think, "Exactly how can we eliminate the immediate threat first?"

I will say, however, that President Bush is probably very good at Civilization III.

***************************************************

Some Applicable Quotations:

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means" - from a translated version of "On War"

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility" - John Fisher

"This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war." - Tom Daschle when President Bush struck Iraq

"If men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail." - Ulysses S. Grant

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"The opposite of war is not peace, It's creation" - Jonathan Larson Rent

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

"This war will not be over by the next commercial break" - US spokeperson talking to reporters during the Gulf War

"What's the use of sending a $2 million missile into a $10 tent to hit a camel in the butt?" - George W. Bush

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind." - Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration - Please tell me from where all this hate came

[Rylkan]

First, I will state my personal view of whom I desire to be president. I am personally going to vote Kerry in the election. He is not perfect, but I find him much better than the alternative of Bush for another term.

Secondly, people's comments here. I apologize, I will not be quoting who posted it, but I give credit to everyone and their idea's to begin with.

~~~~~~~~~~

I would not like to put our county into the hands of a Democrat who thinks they should stop the war. If we do stop it, we will leave ourselves open to any attacks the terroists might have.

Many times we have been caught off guard, the worst being the Two Towers. Bush didn't sit back and watch, he took action. So he started a war which may last... Maybe Forever, but we are a lot safer then we ever have been before. I don't want another attack like that. I'm glad he took action. If we hadn't, I don't know how many more people would have died due to terroists.

There is no proof, and in fact, quite the opposite, that democrats wish to "end the war". Instead, it is a matter of withdrawing our troops from the place that they shouldn't be, and trying to rectify what has been done both by the citizens themselves and by our government. The war on terror as it has been called, if not being halted. Instead, it is to be conducted differently under someone other than Bush. In a less intrusive manner than we have already handled things, by inserting our dominance where it doesn't necessarily belong.

I also wish to remind you, the 9/11 incident, and Iraq, are two different incidents, and the actions Bush has taken in iraq, while tied to a "war on terror" does not gain anything by linking it to one another.And yes, homeland security is good, but the type Bush is trying to assure us isn't security from attack, it's annihalting those who could attack us. While it isn't wrong to try and protect the nation, one needs to remember the means doesnt justify the ends. And we need to make sure we are not going about the ends via the wrong means. And on the note on deaths, the future is not our's to tell (que sera sera) so we cannot verify the accuracy of how many more lives would of been lost.

-----

I think Bush should be re-elected so that he can provide help for the other countries with oppresive dictators (North Korea), and people we don't think should have nuclear weapons (North Korea). But we wont touch them because they WILL fire there ICBM's*.

I will ask one simple question in response to this. Define good and bad. It's a simple question with no simple answer. To us, it may seem dictatorships and the like are evil as a rule and wrong. But to others, it may not be such a feeling. Even if you were to change the government, I am sure some would dislike the new government as well. We are not the conscious of the world, we cannot decide what is right or wrong. All that makes us is a bully with our views that we will force on others. And as for the weapons, by the note, NO ONE should have them, But again, it is an issue of good versus bad.

-----

Economy -- The "No Child Left Behind" Act has caused a decrease in racially influenced affirmative action, and has brought the nation's education system closer to giving equal opportunity to students regardless of their background.

War on Terrorism -- The US does not get the majority of its oil from the Middle East. Actually, it gets most of its oil from Venezuela. Gasoline prices in the US have also been considerably lower than in other parts of the world until recently. Gas prices have increased to an extent since the war began, but that's more because of people trying to stop the war on Iraq than it is from the war on Iraq itself. If we take ANY oil from the Middle East, the media jumps on us and says we're only there for the oil. Hence, ways of getting oil have been limited due to the people against the war, not the war itself. Also, many people have used the propagandist technique of referring to an unconstitutional authoritarian government as a "soveriegn nation." Under that basis, you could refer to Nazi Germany or Militarist Japan as a similarly "sovereign nation." Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, and Shiite Iraq have all been run very similarly, the people of such countries taken advantage of and led to believe that their race and/or religion is superior to all others. If that's what a "sovereign nation" is to you, I see no reason to oppose removing such a government from its position of authority.

Touching on the No Child Left Behind policy, I reccomend you talk to some of your teachers *not trying to be rude* and see the views on it from the educational stand point. It is a very useful idea, but it just hasn't worked all too well in practice. With this plan, even kindergarteners can be held back for not passing a test. Being a poor test taker myself, this only seems to be holding back more people, who may be just as brilliant as the next person. As well, the actual money for this plan isn't truly reaching the schools all too much. I won't get into why because frankly I am not up to date on the exact workings of the money aspect in this issue, but I do know it isnt helping as much as it was originally inteded to. *Thus Kerry realizing that this may not of been the best view ever. But I will get to the matter of his changing views later in my response.*

And again, I ask, who are we to decide who needs to be taken out of power? We are merely pawns in the big game of life, not gods to choose who will be what and what they can do.

-----

One I think hes the closest to God of the otherz.
Two: I DO NOT and will not support gay marriage.

I will go into this more later in my post about the societal downfalls of Bush, but to briefly touch on this post, I would like to say something.

First, is the seperation of church and state. True, we cannot totally sever the tie between the human and his belief system in his decisions, but it should not be a conscious component of his decisions. We live our lives here on earth, and it should not be decided by a widely argued thing such as religion, which is the cause of alot of these problems in the first place. I would like to ask, do you have friends of other religions? Well, this is there country too, they have a right to not have their livelihood chosen for them in a religious sense by the government. We escaped to america for freedom from religious persecution. Do you want that to happen here? *Not persecution persay, but religion being something that is forced into your government*

Second, on the matter of gay marriage, I will not comment on the matter of your being accepting or not, but I will say this. It is closely related to my last comment. We are all citizens of this country. We all have basic human rights and are members of the same human race. If someone were to choose their own path, it is fair to tell them it is right or wrong? And how can one determine if it is right or wrong without religion? it is merely a viewpoint and a personal feeling that is being forced on another. We live on earth, so we should use our time wisely and enjoy it, not prepare for when we are dead.

-----

Kerry plans to reinstate the draft too, a fact that the media has carefully concealed from the public because they want people to vote for him...

Give me proof of this and I will be willing to pay you money to let it be known to the world. Otherwise, it isnt right to spread false information.

----

Can you please back this by a fact? Parallel universes haven't been proven yet, so no, I haven't noticed what would have happened otherwise (nothing against you, hehe, just a random astrophysics joke).

Actually, getting technical we do have other universes......

-----

Should a presidents IQ make any difference?

Not IQ persay, but common sense and wisdom and knowledge are important. I don't want a president who can barely speak to the world to be the one representing us. ::coughBushcough::

-----

... And what if Saddam did have a bomb or two? Would he use them on us, rattle his sword at his enemies, or use them on another enemy "closer to home" for him? One bomb drops here, we would pelt them with mushroom clouds until there is a crater visible from the moon. One bomb drops on Iran or another country in that area, the world will take over Iraq. He knows both of these outcomes and therefore wouldn't use a bomb. Therefore, all he could do with them is rattle his sword... And if he did that, would we have difficulty getting support from the world? Whatever_anim.gif

I just want to elaborate on this point since Cspace makes a very good point here. Saddam was stuck in a position where he couldn't truly make any movement outwardly. True, this does leave the possibility of if he could do it subvertly through acts of terror, but let me bring up this point. That is like trying to pin a needle into the tail of a donkey in a dark room a mile in diameter. It just can't be determined without limited information. The importance of this? We can't jump to conclusions about acts of terror without proof. And yes, he is stuck where he cannot do anything to us outwardly., but he is also stuck as to how far he can go without drawing attention to himself. I won't say he wouldnt do anything, but we can't just assume he is at wrong either without information.

And no, I dont like Saddam Hussein particularly, but I am not going to condemn people without reason.

-----

Did anyone ever wonder why France and Germany (not necessarily these countries but that area) were against us going into Iraq? Why they weren't going to help us at all? Obviously what Saddam was doing in Iraq was wrong, so why wouldn't they help us? We found evidence that Iraq was buying essential materials needed to make bombs from the area I just mentioned. That area of the world is having money problems so obviously they would take it and be against us going in there and cutting off that part of their income.
Just 3 or 4 days ago Iran stated that they would continue on with the bomb procedure. So, Bush was right to think that they had bombs, but he came to early for them to make them. I for one voted for bush on this pole.

I have not heard of the economic hardships of these countries. I am not saying you're not being honest, I just would like to see proof. As for why they would not go in, it is for the same reasons as us in why we are against it. Cost, Human Life, Political hardhsip and strain. it isn't easy to go to war. it never is. So I am not willing to equate not fighting with wanting things to go on. Which, as my previous posts state, is not a bad thing. Terrorism is not good, but the country itself wasn't bad.

------

Iraq was a terrorist country that hated the US and was torturing thousands of citizens. They even used their own weapons of mass destruction on them. Firstly, we knew we could win a war with Iraq quickly. Iran has a more powerful military... BUT it also has a well educated society that wants freedom. So we can deal with Iran differently. Oh, yeah, and besides, where are our troops? You know that our troops are right now in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iran is in the middle of the two. And since they want freedom, we can secretly talk with the people on the sides of Iran and start reforming on the sides having Iran totally surrounded. Best move to make, IMO.

And in conjunction:

For a change to naturally be brought about due to this we would have to wait a very long time (a country with one mindset for hundreds of years will not naturally change in a few from passive outside influences). Ideas don't need to be joined by political borders to spread, if the President wants to bring democracy to them why can't he do it without force if they want it? If they want it, we can assist them (even if it involves providing troops), but we don't need to reform their country for them. If force is required in something like this we failed, it should be a last resort in any circumstance unless you're Rome, and if you're Rome you should be motivated by expansion - a path I hope we don't follow because it will lead to major problems in time.

About this, I find the idea sad how it is possible. But I ask you Star Jedi, why should we take over? Just answer this. I am curious as to why you feel why. I am willing to bet you that while it could be dangerous to us, or a different view than ours, it is better to let things occur as they will.

And as for Cspace's response. I semi-agree with it. I Agree this would be the most peaceful manner to do it, to just try and spread the idea, but I doubt the government would take kindly to it, or all the people in the country. It is still risky in that we may lose further face and anger them wtih trying to take our beliefs and make them accept it. I agree if people want it, it might not be bad, but again, there are people here in the US who want a dictatorship. So why don't we have one here?

-----

Yeah, there will be differences. I believe if Bush is re-elected then he can be a better president than before. Now that re-election isn't an issue, he doesn't have to worry about the polls, etc. He can do what he thinks is right to protect what we stand for without interruption. I trust in his ability to do so.

I apologize in advance, but since this is a matter of personal opinion, this quote, I fear not having re election is a very BAD thing. And it scares me. The reason why? He doesnt have anything to hold him back from doing what he want's to do. He doesn't stand to lose an election by doing it, so he will do what he wants this time through. Which, yes, may be better. But given the trend, may be very bad for the common man.

------

At least Kerry can change his opinion if things don't turn out as expected. I would rather a President think than continue down a path that he knows is wrong and not admit it...

This is a big issue I wanted to point out. I don't see why everyone believes because he changes his mind he is wishy washy and not good for the presidency. The candidates are humans. I see Bush and I see he is unwilling to change his views and admit he may of been wrong and go back to fix them, to try and make better of our world before it goes worse. And with Kerry, while not perfect, I see him at least trying to change what has gone wrong and help the world out. I don't know about you, but I would prefer the candiate who tries there best before in the middle and after, than one who just goes for the before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, to quickly sum up, I will make some of my own comments for people to think on as they will or won't.

I want to remind you, remember the issues of societal and economics here. This has become a thread about war, yes it is important, but we also need to live. With Bush, there has been increased spending in areas, that while yes, technically are for security, could be better spend in other ventures. Such as the scientist would say in me, medical and science fields. We can help out the world through these things as well. The economy while having always been in debt, is still being handled in a way that could be changed to try and make a difference for the better, not just increase the amount we owe.

And as for society, I don't like how Bush is bring personal views and religion into politics. Our country was started *well, North Ameria by indians but I mean the colonies* by those wishing to escape religious persecution. We already live in a hgihly religion oriented society, is it right to make it even more so influenced by it? Who is Bush to decide what is right or wrong for people to do? He is only human and so are we all. Even if there is a god, we have a right to chose to live our life away from this, and he shouldnt decide what is right for us or not. in matters such as abortion *I am neither pro life or choice* or religion or marriage.

Just food for thought. I would of put more, but this post is long enough as is.

[Rylkan]

Also I mean to comment on freedom of speech next time.

[Cspace]

Actually, getting technical we do have other universes......

Lol, it would seem that way, at least until some infinity or another problem pops up randomly in the string theory.

As long as we live in a 11-dimensional universe we're set.

Just need to find the machine to transcend the multiverse eh?

Anyway, that's something to debate in Study Hall

****************************************************

Getting back to the topic, in a scary way I agree with just about everything you said. Here are a few of my comments though:

And yes, homeland security is good, but the type Bush is trying to assure us isn't security from attack, it's annihalting those who could attack us.

This is something that the President should never do, sometimes he will have to rely on common sense and flat-out predictions, but should something as serious as a war be based on these alone? The President was basically saying "We are pretty sure that they have the weapons, so for what are we waiting?" We go in, and surprise! No bombs! So then he changed the message (because he knew we needed to go to war) to something along the lines of "We're going to stop the terrorists there and make us safer." It then mysteriously morphed into "We're going to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq."

Someone please tell me where the President is going with this???

The next four years will be like riding a roller coaster with a blindfold on; prepared for anything but unsure of where the next political corkscrew will come.

... Who is the "flip flopper"?

Bah, this election is Simpsons material.

One I think hes the closest to God of the otherz.

Wait a minute. Isn't that what the terrorists think of those like Osama as well?

(not to mention Rylkan's point also)

About this, I find the idea sad how it is possible. But I ask you Star Jedi, why should we take over? Just answer this. I am curious as to why you feel why. I am willing to bet you that while it could be dangerous to us, or a different view than ours, it is better to let things occur as they will.

And as for Cspace's response. I semi-agree with it. I Agree this would be the most peaceful manner to do it, to just try and spread the idea, but I doubt the government would take kindly to it, or all the people in the country. It is still risky in that we may lose further face and anger them wtih trying to take our beliefs and make them accept it. I agree if people want it, it might not be bad, but again, there are people here in the US who want a dictatorship. So why don't we have one here?

Isn't it becoming obvious that this is all wrong? If we want democracy there, we can basically either wait at least 40 years for ideas to naturally spread (by any means, however conflicting ideas at the borders will take even longer in a religiously driven country such as that) or we can mobilize our military and force it on them. There is nothing in between that will likely be successful in the end. The more peaceful approach will not give us or anyone any real trouble, and I'm pretty sure that they would naturally establish democracy of a sort in time regardless of what we do (even if we do nothing). The war-like approach will bring about change more quickly, but with a potentially great cost and the mindset of "destroy what is there, then rebuild in the correct manner" (also "the end justifies the means").

So which is right to bring democracy to the Middle East? Military or peace? Gambling or certainty? Destruction or construction? Cost or time? Neither is correct, why we find a need to do it in the first place is beyond me.

Plus, another branch from that argument...

If we want democracy there

If we want democracy there, who's will is it to bring it upon them? We think they should have it, so we give them no choice but to reform? I don't know how this sounds to you, but to me it sounds heavily motivated by politics.

After all, we just came in and took over. It's not like we really had overwhelming support there to begin with, and we definitely don't now.

With Bush, there has been increased spending in areas, that while yes, technically are for security, could be better spend in other ventures.

The money for the war and security has caused that which was promised for other things to magically disappear. For example, a lot of what was promised for the schools has taken a right turn. Want proof? Ask a teacher who has been teaching for a while.

President Bush promises a lot, much more than he can give. Take a look at the national debt and you'll see where we're going because of it. Do we want temporary gains with the promise of future problems, or a stable economy that can last?

Since as many know I am fairly adept with the things NASA is planning and astronomy and whatnot, I'll use NASA as an example to put things in perspective.

As for the timeframe, some probably know what the President proposed for the future of space travel. In around 17-20 years we'll be building structures and launch platforms on the moon. In around 30-35 years we'll be giving a trip to Mars a shot. These are the basic plans set forth by the President. Sounds cool, huh?

Little do some realize, that was the exact same time frame which was predicted previously for all this. So what was the President proposing? NOTHING. Just making NASA feel a little better (and I won't disagree with that, hehe)... except for the fact that he has physically done NOTHING after that speech of his around January.

... Just like many of his other unrelated propositions. He is concentrating too heavily on the war and everything else is suffering. So the war is killing thousands of people, creating a possible civil war, "throwing a rock at the hornets' nest", creating dangerous precedents, and taking away the focus from issues at home.

Meh, I'll stop there for now