My Two Cents About The Election

[namkcuR]

I have been listening to both sides for months. And I have heard John Kerry speak at NYU and on Late Night With David Letterman today. And the conclusion that I have come to is that it is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why or how anyone in the world with an iota of intelligence or awareness of the world would ever in a million years think George W. Bush is worth their vote over John Kerry.

It's not neccessarily what Bush claims he wants to achieve. It's the results, and the way in which he arrives at them. Of course terrorism needs to be stopped. That's a no-brainer. But Bush did it the WRONG way. The RIGHT way would have been to wait for the weapons inspectors finish their job, to wait for the UN to give FULL AND UNANIMOUS approval(the area of legality where the war is concerned is extremely grey and very much up to any individual's interpretation of various resolutions and so forth), and to take the time to gather allies, and with those allies and the UN behind us, make a plan for war and execute it. But instead, led by Bush, we rushed into an ill-advised war with no allies, virtually destroying the unprecedented support we had after 9/11. And what are the results? Sure, Saddam is gone. But what else? Terrorists are running rampant in Iraq. Yet another beheading today. And more and more soldiers and Iraqis die every day, and it's not as if we can leave, that would result in total anarchy. The insurgency is boiling, a good portion of the Iraqis don't appreciate us at all, and the reconstruction effort overall is not going anywhere near as good as Bush would have you think with his optimistic reports. Of course, being honest with the people has never been his forte. The murmer is that the January election is in doubt. Security is not sufficent there, among other things. More soldiers and Iraqis are dying every day. You can't have an election if you're worried about people getting killed DURING the election. Bottom line, it's not going well over there, and quite frankly, it's pretty much a mess by the accounts I'm hearing.

And all the while our reputation in the world is in shambles. The Bush administration, who seems to have an affinity for dividing people against each other, has accomplished that task on a catostrophic scale. By alienating the USA from the rest of the world, this administration has injected more division into the world, when in these times, every resource pocessed by every country on Earth should be put forth for the common cause of unity, and not division. This war could have been the WORLD Against Terrorism. And that would have been a grand thing, many countries putting all their resources and assets into fighting a planned and concise and strategic war against these criminals. But instead, this was is the U.S. against Terrorism and the WORLD. And that saddens me. Right now this country is not behaving nearly as great as I know it is.

And the neo-cons will say 'The war to remove Saddam from power was/is...'. But before that Bush said it was the war to remove the WMD. Then it was the war against Iraq because they had ties to Al Queda. Finally, THIRD on the list was the war to remove Saddam. And now there's a new one: War against the capability to produce WMD. If the president can't even decide on a reason for war, what makes anyone think it was done right at all? I don't think some people realize how disliked we are right now in the international community, and scarier still, I don't think enough people care.

Couple the war with an array of issues here in the USA that I violently disagree with Mr. Bush on, such as the biggest deficit in history, tax cuts for the wealthy, an awful healthcare system, nothing important [/sarcasm], and at age 20, my first presidential vote is one that is easy to make.

I'm voting John Kerry on Nov 2. Just hearing him talk, I mean, just the idea of having a president who can talk and sound intelligent again is exciting to me. I miss Clinton. Anyway, hopefully Kerry will send a message during the debates and Bush will be out the door in 2004.

Just my two cents. Think what you will.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Casus Beli was that Saddam Hussein had not verifiably disarmed all his banned weapons programs and was in violation of Chapter VII UN Resoltions.

That said there are many legitimate other motivations to go into Iraq. Of these the humanitarian element of removing a dictator who was murdering tens of thousands of civilians annually and ending the sanctions which when manipulated by the regime supressed the population and killed hundreds of thousands. Then you have the fact that Islamism must be defeated. When Iraqs stability is guaranteed under an Iraqi government it will be a slap in the face of Islamism. They will loose and liberty will triumph, this will take a long time but in the long run it is the only way to guarantee our survival. If we do not then the support for Islamists and the threat of them achieving their goals of extermination will come to pass.

You are exactly right that more soldiers and Iraqi's die as time moves forward. You see there is this strange thing about life and death, its one way. It is impossible for less soldiers and Iraqi's to die as time moves forward because that would essentially be ressurection. Now in terms of magnitude the Iraq campaign is unparallelled in scope and effectiveness. Can anybody here legitimately argue that the casualties resulting from Iraq are larger than those of millitary operations of the same magnitude over history. 1000 US casualties and 13,000 Iraqi civlian casualties are minor considering the goals that have been achieved and continue to be achieved.

Polling of Iraqi's by various groups indicates that most desire to see peace and democracy. They are in favour of religious leaders and university professors (each with around 30% in leadership stakes) becoming leaders. A majority would prefer to see Islamic principles in government but the vast majority are opposed to traditionalists and want to see a progressive government. The elections will go ahead, most Iraqi's desire to vote in these elections and they will not be swayed by violence to vote for thugs.

Now who in the world has Bush isolated? France and the rest of the European appeasers. Countries which enjoyed US protection for decades who have come to the conclusion that there is nothing worth fighting for. The Islamic world, full of kleptocracies and theocracies who are scared that if Iraq suceeds their iron grip on power will fail and Muslims may actually start to rise up in the name of freedom? Bush has eliminated the posers and found out who his real allies are, I am proud that my country is in Iraq (albeit in such a limited capacity, but a little is better than nothing) and assisting in a fight that will determine the course of the world for the next 50 years. If Iraq fails then we are fucked, if Iraq succeeds then the enemies of civilization are fucked. Go ahead and pick your side.

Kerry has in his mind Vietnam. He wants to portray Iraq as independent of the wider War on Political Islam. He speaks of massive blunders - that he would still support. A threat to US security when he said holding his opinion makes one unsuitable for POTUS. By saying that a hastened withdrawl from Iraq and shirking responsibility to the weak and innefective UN Kerry will ensure that the US is seen as a paper tiger who will balk at the smallest of casualties. Just like after Mogadishu the US will feal the wrath of the Islamists on its city streets because of its own weakness. Phased troop withdrawls and apologys to those in league with the enemy (France (Oil for Food Scam, False Intelligence, Ongoing arms deals with Saddam), Russia (selling nuclear technology to Iran) etc.) will only embolden your enemies to take more away.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm sorry I shut down anything you had to say after the first paragraph. Clearly I am not intelligent enough.

[Q]And the conclusion that I have come to is that it is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why or how anyone in the world with an iota of intelligence or awareness of the world would ever in a million years think George W. Bush is worth their vote over John Kerry.
[/Q]

 

[namkcuR]

I'm sorry I shut down anything you had to say after the first paragraph. Clearly I am not intelligent enough.

[Q]And the conclusion that I have come to is that it is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why or how anyone in the world with an iota of intelligence or awareness of the world would ever in a million years think George W. Bush is worth their vote over John Kerry.
[/Q]

No no, you misunderstand. I never said that I didn't think there were intellitegent Bushs supporters, that would make ME an idiot. What I said was that it blows my mind that there ARE in fact perfectly intelligent people who understand the issues and such, and still think Bush is the better man. I am not attacking anyone's intelligence, however I could have been clearer with that statement.

 

[namkcuR]

[quote[Can anybody here legitimately argue that the casualties resulting from Iraq are larger than those of millitary operations of the same magnitude over history[/quote]

That's not the point. There have been wars where far more than that have lost their lives. But the difference is, they were fighting a war that was justified. In the Civil War, there weren't people in the North having daily debates as to whether or not it should have gone to war with the South. In WW2, there weren't debates(at least not to this extent) as to whether we should have responded to Pearl Harbor. But there are debates now. If there is this much debating going on, that is proof in and of itself that something is not right. You can flash all the polls you want in my face, I don't believe any poll. I wouldn't even believe a poll that said Kerry was ahead by 12 points right now. It's not a biased thing, I just don't trust any poll for anything where politics is concerned. As for the war itself, Iraq is a hotbed for terrorists now.

And what about Al Queda? Do you know that in 2001, after we invaded Afghanistan, and we had legions of troops there, all Bush had to do was give one order and those troops and all the machinery and tools they had would have on an extensive hunt of the mountains and caves over there, which could possibly, maybe even probably, have led to the capture of the world's #1 terrorist. Instead, Bush brought the troops home, and told Afghan soldiers, soldiers we had been fighting AGAINST not a week before, to go find Osama. WTF is that? And now Osama and Al Queda have grown over the last three years. Don't fool youself into think Bush is helping terrorism. He's making it worse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

OBL is not the threat, he is a figurehead and his responsibility in planning the terror attacks is negligable compared to the operatives that have been captured such as Hambali and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The operation within Iraq can deliver a stunning victory against Islamism, by establishing a liberal democracy of sorts in the muslim world it will be evidence that Islamism is not the only alternative to dictatorships. The task of winning the GWOT is two-fold, firstly one must attack the terrorists and break their operational capacity, by bombing and hunting down operatives and freezing funds this part is being done. The second part is to remove the support they recieve from Muslims abroad, the only remedy of Islamist Despotism is a good dose of liberty. If given a choice between freedom and tyranny I am confident people will choose freedom. It will not be an instant Jeffersonian democracy but it will be a start. This can transform the Arab world from a den of post-colonial vipers into a viable set of nations with a vested interest in peace and stability.

Only such a broad scaled plan that delivers the economic, social and political change to the Muslim world will any measure of success in the fight against Islamic terror be realized. This is defeating an ideology, Islamism is the greatest threat to individuality today, the scale of its ambitions surpasss Nazism and Communism - it must be defeated or we will all suffer.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I should clarify here that Bin Laden is a definite "big fish" but it is the men who still have the ability to operate that represent a greater direct threat, Al Qaeda is not the only Islamist organization out there and do not make the mistake of thinking if we killed every last "Al Qaeda" operative the threat is removed. One must infiltrate and annihilate all Islamist organizations and the economic support that they recieve (from Gulf States e.g. Saudies who are sympathetic to the greater Islamist cause).

 

[withashout]

"OBL is not the threat, he is a figurehead and his responsibility in planning the terror attacks is negligable compared to the operatives that have been captured such as Hambali and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. "

Huh?

Attacks on Austrlian embassy in Indonesia; attacks in Madrid; attacks in Bali; attacks in Casablanca; attacks in Istanbul; attacks in Iraq now, obviously; the list goes on. The US has successfully pushed the terrorism outside of the "homeland" but that does not mean Al Qaeda is not continuing to strike where and when it can, despite the capture of these "operatives" you mention. Getting OBL will not end AL Qaeda completely of course but it will be a major victory. The fact is though that he is worth more to Bush alive now than dead.

We already are suffering, and the "Islamists" (whatever that means) haven't even taken over. We need real diplomatic leadership and vision, not just continued instillment of fear through terrorism that is brought about by both sides.

 

[nbcrusader]

And the conclusion that I have come to is that it is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why or how anyone in the world with an iota of intelligence or awareness of the world would ever in a million years think George W. Bush is worth their vote over John Kerry.

I'm with Dread on this. Leading you statements with this arrogant crap makes the rest not worth reading. But don't feel bad. You're not the first to make such statements here.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Excuse me but those attacks that you have listed were conducted by domestic Islamist groups with connections to Al Qaeda in terms of expertise and ideology. I doubt that the Bali bombings (Which were before the War in Iraq) were ordered by Osama bin Laden, they were conducted by Jemaah Islamiya which is a regional terror organization here in SE Asia that seeks to create a pan-Islamic state stretching from Malaysia to Mindanao. JI grew out of the Darul Islam groups. The seeds for this organization were layed in the 1980's when Soharto was embarking on a campaign that drove the Islamists out of the country where they went off and fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. They returned in the late 1990's where the Asian Economic Meltdown intitated a situation of political chaos. They siezed upon it and their goal of destroying the Indonesian state and establishing the Caliphate has been the driving factor in their operations.

You can not wipe out a terrorist organization by fighting it, fighting it obstructs it but it does not remove it. The only way to remove terrorist organizations is to wipe out the support. This is done by discrediting and eliminating the Islamist doctrines and this is done by forcing drastic social and economic reforms into the Muslim world. This terrorism was a Saudi Civil war exported to us, the best solution is to cut the blood supply and go for the heart - eliminate the violent ideology of Islamism and grant liberty to everybody. Until liberty is secure for all, peace will be forever out of reach.

The US has not pushed terrorism outside the homeland, terror attacks by these organizations has been happening for a long time only you didn't care because it didn't effect you at all before. The embassy bombings, Bojinka (foiled), USS Cole - those were the lead up to 9/11 that took place outside the US. You can ignore the threat at your own folly - no matter how much culture of feal BS you try to pull off the truth about Islamism is inescapable.

Islamist is the term used to describe those who's ideology matches Islamism. This is where the imperitives of the state are governed totally by Sharia and the Koran. For an example of an Islamist state please refer to the Taliban in Afghanistan. These groups seek to establish this, I suggest that you actually listen to what they are saying before you leap to condemn your own leaders. They are not going to "take over" any time soon, because of this they may just choose the much simpler option of destroying us. This would only require the suitable weapons and the correct means to deliever them. Make no mistake these groups love death, they represent the antithesis of life - you can not negotiate with them at all.

 

[sharky]

Not to get off topic, but I will.

Nam-- is this something you recently decided after looking at both sides? I'm curious because alot of us here are obviously very opinionated and passionate about our pick for president, but most of us seem to have made up our minds long ago. I'm wondering why you've waited this long.

 

[Klaus]

I just wanted to mention that i disslike these new harsher words on FYM by threadopeners (like on this thread, or on "Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians ")

 

[namkcuR]

Not to get off topic, but I will.

Nam-- is this something you recently decided after looking at both sides? I'm curious because alot of us here are obviously very opinionated and passionate about our pick for president, but most of us seem to have made up our minds long ago. I'm wondering why you've waited this long.

It's not recent at all. I've never liked Bush, I would've voted against him in 2000 had I been old enough to. And I've followed each of the Democratic nominees(Kerry, Edwards, Howard, Clark, Sharpton, etc) ever since they started running and now that Kerry is the pick I'm behind him all the way. The reason I posted this thread yesterday is because Kerry impressed me yesterday, with his speech at NYU and on Late Night With David Letterman, with his speaking skills and his knowledge of the issues. He impressed me in that area more than any politician has since Clinton.

Now, about the first paragraph of my original post - I apologize to those I may have offended, I didn't mean to imply that people who support Bush are unintelligent, that's not it. I just feel very strongly about this election and very strongly against Bush, and sometimes I get frustrated with people, even people I know in real life, that are intelligent people, people that I respect, who think Bush is the better choice. Furthermore, I had just read something that had gotten me worked up, and perhaps I should've waited a bit before making this post, so as to be a little more emotionally under control. Again, I apologize.

 

[namkcuR]

"OBL is not the threat, he is a figurehead and his responsibility in planning the terror attacks is negligable compared to the operatives that have been captured such as Hambali and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. "

Huh?

Attacks on Austrlian embassy in Indonesia; attacks in Madrid; attacks in Bali; attacks in Casablanca; attacks in Istanbul; attacks in Iraq now, obviously; the list goes on. The US has successfully pushed the terrorism outside of the "homeland" but that does not mean Al Qaeda is not continuing to strike where and when it can, despite the capture of these "operatives" you mention. Getting OBL will not end AL Qaeda completely of course but it will be a major victory. The fact is though that he is worth more to Bush alive now than dead.

We already are suffering, and the "Islamists" (whatever that means) haven't even taken over. We need real diplomatic leadership and vision, not just continued instillment of fear through terrorism that is brought about by both sides.

Thank you.

 

[pax]

I just wanted to mention that i disslike these new harsher words on FYM by threadopeners (like on this thread, or on "Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians ")

I agree.

Can we try to be a little more respectful of our fellow posters?

Thanks.

 

[Jamila]

namkcuR -

For the life of me, I can't figure out support for Bush either - not unless you come from a family which is benefitting from Bush's tax breaks for the upper classes.

He is doing all that he can to sign the American environment over to big business to exploit and destroy for future generations of Americans not to be able to enjoy.

He has been so aggressive and disrespectful to the majority of nations around the world that almost the entire world (at least the people of the world - some governments still support him) HATE HIM - HOW CAN THAT BE GOOD FOR THE FUTURE SECURITY OF THE USA?

Not to mention how he has NOT DONE ENOUGH for the majority of Americans to secure their future economic security - putting more and more of us in STRUCTURAL POVERTY with very little ability to get out of it (not to mention looking the other way as corporations are slashing health care benefits)!

GEORGE BUSH MADE A MESS OUT OF THE TEXAS ECONOMY WHEN HE WAS GOVERNOR HERE - NOW HE IS TRYING TO DO THAT WITH THE NATIONAL ECONOMY!

I sincerely do not understand the rationales to support Bush - he has MARGINAL INTELLIGENCE and CONNIVING POLITICAL FRIENDS and ADVISERS (let alone a corrupt VP).

I simply don't understand how people can like getting kicked in the backside by George Bush!

 

[nbcrusader]

Please SUPPORT your contentions with a few FACTS.

 

[Jamila]

nbcrusader, I LIVE MY TRUTH!

My life has been made an economic mess Bush's giveaways to big business first here in Texas and now in DC.

If your life, nbcrusader, has been made safer and more economically secure by George Bush's policies - the please POST YOUR FACTS!

There's no reason why posters always have to nitpick with each other - this is a forum to express opinions and ideas, not to constantly be contentious with each other.

Post your opinions and ideas, nbcrusader, instead of always tearing down others.

But actually isn't that the Bush way - don't focus on your own ideas and actions (because they are probably wrong) but simply keep attacking others until you think you've fought them down?

That is Carl Rove's policy, isn't it?

Sorry - THIS IS ONE PERSON FOR REGIME CHANGE THAT YOU CAN'T CONFUSE OR WEAR DOWN.

Remember, what you try to do to others ultimately comes back to get you (law of karma).

 

[pax]

I really wish people in this forum could stop berating each other for what they believe and talk like adults.

This goes for BOTH SIDES.

 

[indra]

I really wish people in this forum could stop berating each other for what they believe and talk like adults.

This goes for BOTH SIDES.

And I wish people would stop getting their shorts in a twist over other people's opinions. The title of this thread makes it clear it is an OPINION of ONE person...an opinion to which he has a right.

How many times must namkcuR apologise before it's accepted and people move on? And if you want to discuss offensive/arrogant/pretentious statements...well everyone in this thread has posted something (often several somethings) that has irritated me. Face it people, we all irritate each other here. It's a place of opinions and discussion, and sometimes those opinions are strong. Big deal. If you get offended by this thread you need to take a few deep breaths and do something else.

C'mom people, can't any of you tell when offense is meant and when it is inadvertent? So many people say they hate political correctness, but then they expect everyone (everyone else ususally) to walk on eggshells. Save the indignation for when it's really warranted.

 

[odowdpa]

I was curious to read this thread because it was coming from someone who was making a decision in a crucial state. But when I read the opening remarks: ...

"The RIGHT way would have been to wait for the weapons inspectors finish their job, to wait for the UN to give FULL AND UNANIMOUS approval"

... I had to shake my head and wonder if this person has actually lsitened to anything going on in the world. For years, mind you YEARS, we have been talking about this and how Iraq wouldn't let weapons inspectors in. But you're saying thats the right way to do things. If we did them you're way, or the right way as you put it, you'd wait forever until they did have WMD. Atleast it looks like the good people have of Ohio have the right sense to actually go with someone that has a plan.

 

[Klaus]

odowdpa:
Well there were Weaponinspectors at work (and they even destroyed long-range missiles) in Iraq. They told the public 2 things the US didn't want to hear:
1st: we need some more weeks (maybee months) to find out the truth about the WMDs
2nd: to this point it looks like Iraq has no huge amounts of WMDs, maybe some relics from the improper desctruction.

Judge yourself who was better in telling the public the truth about Iraqs WMDs

ps They had to leave the country because of the invasion of the current administration and the US didn't let them continue their job after the invasion.

 

[odowdpa]

How many times can you hear the same lines...

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[indra]

How many times can you hear the same lines...

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Yep. And Bush has already played this nation for the fool.

I'm not a fool.

 

[odowdpa]

We can get into the same old things, but please tell me the outline Kerry has given us about what he would do about Iraq. Please, because he hasn't.

He said he would have gone into Iraq just like Bush did. But he said he'd have concocted a more "compassionate war". I forgot such a thing existed.

Do you think Bush wants people dying? Was this his plan from the get go? Because thats the vibe I am almost getting here. Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator (dictators if you include his sons). He is trying to set a country in the right way and fight terrorism at the same time. He is doing what he has to, whether it is popular or not. He doesn't change his opinion or attitude, like some, ahem, Kerry, whenever the wind changes direction.

Kerry is a man who voted FOR the war and subsequently voted against its funding. But he's not fooling anybody. Thats only one small example. We need someone who isn't afraid to go against popular opinion. He might have you fooled, but thank God the majority of the nation sees things for what they are.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think it is entirely fair to attack Kerry's funding vote, that funding package had some questionable elements that Kerry (and quite a few others) didn't agree with. He did make it bad for himself by saying he had voted for it before he had voted against it.

Kerry wants to internationalize the effort, to shirk the responsibility onto the UN - that simply is not good enough. The US is the only country in the world with the capacity to build Iraq, it is a bastard of a thing to do but if one considers the alternative it is by far the more attractive option.

 

[namkcuR]

Kerry voted FOR the war...

Ok, I can't listen to people spout off this misunderstood reasoning anymore.

The vote that is being referred to....Kerry didn't vote for or against the war, and neither did any other senator or congressperson. Is is amazing how many people don't even know what that vote actually was. The senate voted to give the president the power to go to war. Kerry voted for THAT. What they did was they said to GWB, 'it's up to you, it's your call, we're granting you that power, and we trust you to make the right decision'. Bush broke that trust and made the wrong decision.

THAT is what Kerry voted for, believing at the time that Bush would have the sense to gather allies and UN support before invading.

 

[odowdpa]

Oh boy, you can't seem to look between the lines. Kerry KNEW Bush was pro-war in this instance, he KNEW France was out, but he ok'd it anyways...but I guess you're right, he didn't vote for the war, he just said Bush do what you want, knowing he'd be for the war. I hope Kerry has a bit more brain smarts than this just in case he wins. You're saying that he can't tell what is going to happen from his votes? Ok, just making sure.