Why I Will Not Be Voting For Bush

[hiphop]

Yes. I always speak the truth. Bush is a killer.

I´ve been calling him a killer on other occasions too. Check the board, if you desire.

 

[FallenAngel]

It'd be interesting to see what Kerry will do if he was the incumbent.

The Iraq-Kurds killing happened way before Bush Presidency. In Bosnia when multinationals peacekeeping force was there to save the Bosnian from despotic Karadzik, although thousands had been killed, no body accused the multinationals of murdering them. Iraqis is having a civil war upon the absence of order and effective governing body, warlords take their roles. Like is in Afghanistan, reform is fast but chaos always follows. I don't believe that Iraq actually owned a WMD, and the situation in Iraq was expected, but that doesn't make Bush a killer.

I personally wouldn't vote for Bush, but Kerry isn't making it an easy choice either. Focus on issues not person.

what interest me most about the article was the part on nukes

quote:

"the truth is that a nuke cannot logically be answered by anything less than at least two nukes. How long would any US president remain in the White House if, after the nuking of, say, LA, he went to national TV to say: we’ll find the culprits, capture them, send them to the Hague and you can all be sure they’ll spend the next ten years behind bars?"

The truth is nukes only works when its not being used. If any country nukes LA there won't be anything left in the entire continent for the president to go on any national television! Unless of course the US nukes that country first! if nuclear silos of the US is well equipped to launch a second strike I would bet my ears that it should've been equipped to launch the first strike instead (which unfortunately requires a very sophisticated and reliable intelligence and early warning system). Another approach is the star wars defense system in outer space that when the nukes were launched from any country it will be blown up in outer space before it landed on US soil. A system Reagan would've had but not supported by the congress. But who cares 'bout details? after all, its the economy stupid

A.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Missiles can be traced easily, a nuclear attack would be most simple if it was smuggled into the target country and placed where it can inflict the most damage.

Star Wars and Son of Star Wars were overblown wastes of money, the system (if they could ever get it working in real world conditions) could be overcome if you launched enough dud missiles and they do not protect against smuggled weapons. If you eliminate one means of delivery then all a group needs to do is adopt another.

If a terror group used nuclear weapons then the source of the weapons could be traced, but it would take time and probably would not warrant a nuclear strike. The entire cost-benefit analysis that enabled mutually assured destruction does not exist with apocalyptic death cult terrorists - the risk is that much greater because if/when the weapons are obtained they will have no problem using them.

 

[Sherry Darling]

A Wanderer--you're setting up a false dichotomy here. If someone disproves of Bush, that mean they must approve of Saddam. That's not logically true.

Now get along you two.

SD

 

[FallenAngel]

who said anything about nukes in the hands of terrorist? if it were in their hands, even its an obsolete biochem, we all won't be sleeping tight at night!

there are many kinds of missiles, not all of them have nuclear warheads. you don't need to smuggle the whole vehicle, you just need to smuggle the warhead as small as the size of a grapefruit.

I get along with most people and I fully respect others' opinion. In fact I make a living doing that hehehe

so all is cool down here Sherry Darlin'

FA.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I believe the part was in response to the prior post regarding the "business as usual" for Saddam.

I mean I didn't say this!

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
George Orwell, No, Not One (1941)

 

[hiphop]

I believe the part was in response to the prior post regarding the "business as usual" for Saddam.

I mean I didn't say this!

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
George Orwell, No, Not One (1941)

Fine, I´ll take the time and explain it to you like to a 12 yr old kid who´s been watching Fox News for too long.

Your mistake is that you obviously assumed I called Bush a killer because of the U.S. - Iraq war.

Yes, the mothers of the fallen American soldiers could probably argue like that, but I was not referring to this war. Your mindset probably circles around this topic, mine does not.

I was referring to the state sanctioned killing that Bush used to climb up the political latter. Around 150 executions on death row when Bush was Gov. of Texas, without a single chance.

Bush has gloated about the death penalty in more than just the presidential debates of 2000. He is the same Bush who, in 1999, ridiculed death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, whining in mock exaggeration in an interview that Tucker begged, ''Please don't kill me.'' Bush, who has made his Christianity part of his resume, mocked Tucker even though she said she had found Christ.

Like stated before, President Bush is a killer.

On a side note, the Orwell you quote was written in 1941. WW II lasted from 1939 - 1945, so one might choose to see things in Orwell´s perspective. But I don´t have the faintest idea what you are implying with that quote.

I can only imagine (correct me if I´m wrong) where you´re coming from by reading Australian news sources

"According to the report for the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme, about 55 per cent of young Australians believe they live in a democracy. That is, only 55 per cent of respondents in the survey agreed with the statement: "Australia is a democratic country." According to the researchers, some young Australians "referred to their studies of Nazi Germany as a lens through which to view the rights of citizenship"

www.theage.com.au on Aug 24, 2004

 

[Sherry Darling]

FA--My apologies, I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to you.

SD