Bush vs. Kerry | |
Halendor - ex-Student |
I was just wondering, now it's final that Kerry is going to battle Bush in the elections, who would you vote for, and please tell us why. This post was edited by Halendor on Mar 05 2004 04:38pm. |
Poll | ||
Who would you vote for?
|
< Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
Comments |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
Man. Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. They are in their own fields. What I am saying is that one can refute opinions with facts, but you can't refute facts with opinions. You can still give them, but they won't be worth as much. Let's just say I thought Bush wasn't a homophobe. I can write my opinions as such: I think Bush isn't a homophobe. But if you pull some facts out, like: Quote: Bush is the biggest homophobe, blah, blah... ---Dr. Yurka Oldmanoff, PhD. "The Presidency and Homophobia" March 2004. Homosexuality Monthly New York: Academic Press And I come back and say: Yeah, well, you're wrong. Bush is not a homophobe. I really can't win. I could come back and say: Oh yeah, well this PhD backs up the fact that Bush is not a homophobe: Quote: You all are wrong. Bush is not a homophobe. ----Phil DeCrack, PhD "You are all wrong". (and so on for citation) You get my point? It's annoying to hear people say that I'm wrong. I am wrong. But the scholars aren't. What's that? The scholarly readings can be false? They can go both ways? Wow. I never knew that. But guess what? If you KNOW SO, then post the things that are wrong. Post scholarly articles about the other side then. You don't like my opinion? Refute it with fact. C'mon people, you dislike the fact that you feel below me. It isn't that hard, just find something. And for criticizing the Patriot Act without reading it, yes, you have the freedom to say what you wish (in America at least). But you don't have the freedom to be taken seriously. And so I shall make fun of that. It'd be like me saying DJ Sith has the ugliest set of ears of anyone I know. But you know what? I never saw his ears. I'm just guessing off of what I infer about DJ Sith's ears. I have the freedom to say what I wish, to criticize as I wish, but since I have not looked at DJ Sith's ears, no one can take me seriously, right? Same goes with this Patriot Act. It's like making fun of DJ Sith's ears without actually looking at them. Say what you want about either, but you'll get a load of crap if you never looked at either. And that's that. As for my "I have to leave to work soon." That's to cover me from being incomplete. I summarize, I lapse in citations, and I forget to address details. That's because I'm in a rush, and I know you guys to point out something that I FORGOT to mention. That's the disclaimer that I haven't got the most time in the world, so don't pick on me for not covering everything to your liking, or making a mistake. For some odd reason you like picking on any detail that has been forgotten. And when I try to do a disclaimer saying that I'm busy, I can't get every detail in, you jam me for that. And you, of all the jabs you get in to me, have the nerve to tell me I'm not diplomatic. It's not appreciated. I do spend time doing these posts, I do referene and dig out books for them, and I don't have the cash flow to devote much time to these posts. So I summarize and all. I don't need you to bow down to my seeming wisdom, but for crying out loud, I'm giving you good stuff, and you pick on me for what errors I might make. All I'm asking is that you don't make me feel like I'm wasting my time. I don't feel such now, but getting the jabs for the quality info I bring to you isn't making it worth it. So just stop. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
Buzz - Student |
yeah he said he didn't care how much you posted ulic and then proceeded to give his opinion of George Bush, and also say that he probably won't like Kerry either. You weren't directly assaulted. It was only said his mind was made up and you won't change it. You on the other hand act like just because someone voices their opinion or talks about what they saw on the news, which is where most of us lowly normal people get our information about the world have no right to speak their minds. You then proceed to tell them how wrong they are and to back up what they say with proof, and imply that they aren't able to read. Then go off on saying how you have to go do some real work now like we're all so lucky to have you giving your insight to us. Well guess what a lot of others here have real lives too and work and have better stuff to do than come here everyday. But everytime we make a comment we're not saying "I've got to get back to more important stuff, if I'm not busy later I'll grace you all with my words then." I agree with you on alot of the stuff you posted Ulic. I read the information you post with interest. I also read what other people have to say as well even if it is just an opinion or something they heard on the news. And if I have something to come back with at it I will speak. But I'm not going to insult them, or act like I'm superior to them because I have found one more interesting tidbit of information than they have. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Mar 21 2004 05:20pm. |
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student |
Ok, time to lighten this up, here is a nice post about some of the things Goerge W. Bush has done for this this country. It was not done by me, below will be a link to the page I ripped it from. Quote: Here are all the things that Bush has done to impress the hell out of me: # He hasn't started World War III yet. # He manages to mutilate the English language only every other speech. # He cut taxes on dividends, because I'll be damned if those weren't putting me in the poor house. # He made our civil liberties less cumbersome by taking away all that long-winded drivel about having the right to report on immigration hearings conducted by the Justice Department, the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure with McCarthy's, er, Ashcroft's PATRIOT act, and the right to due process for US citizens suspected of being terrorists. # He withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Good I say, global stability was getting to be a pain in the ass. this was take from: http://maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html When I find something making fun of Kerry ( that is funny ) ill post also. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) |
Ulic |retired| - Student |
What qualifies someone to critize something? freedom of speech last time i checked that is _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam This comment was edited by Ulic |retired| on Mar 21 2004 05:04pm. |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
To quote one of the JAC postings: (need I remind you who started the lack of "chilling". Quote: I don't care how much you campaign, ulic. George Bush is a raving, homophobic, violent, close minded idiot. I don't know Kerry enough to bitch at him yet. Democrat or republican doesn't matter. It's just two ends of the same stick they use to beat the sh!t out of you. And I get asked to chill? I'm sorry if I got the impression from this quote that it was OK to directly assault the originator of the posts. Note that this was the FIRST direct assault on the writer of the posts, started by a JAC. Maybe when you follow the rules yourselves you can correct others. And I am quite tired of efforts to convince all of you using references, and not just my own thoughts or third-hand spun knowledge of the situation. And I have yet to see anyone else document things to a level higher than I have. If you want a scholarly and academic citation, you can start. But I'll toss in what I can readily find. I'll cite my stuff in a scholarly fashion, because I was so requested, but I wish to see others refute this with their own scholarly citations though. Refute my opinions with opinions, refute my scholarly and cited facts with scholarly and cited facts. So you guys give your opinions on things, I refute with fact. You refute with opinions, I refute back again with fact. Eventually, I do what any scholar would do, and simply ask for people to refute with facts. I did this with Bandit, and I also made the sarcastic comment that perhaps many cannot bear to read a 300-page document, yet they can criticize it. I also feel that, if you say you are not qualified to READ the Patriot Act, then what makes you qualified to CRITICIZE it? That was my point. But here are some references: (you can also dig out the variety of url links that I embedded in my posts) Cirincione, Joseph, John B. Wolfstahl and Miriam Rajkumar. 2002. Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cole, Leonard A. 1997. The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., LLC. Lavoy, Peter R., Scott D. Sagan and James J. Wirtz. 2000. Planning the Unthinkable. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Sagan, Scott D. and Kenneth N. Waltz. 2003. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. So...that'd be four sources cited just right here. And the ones that are listed in a URL with the quote. Yeah. So, I have, let's say, FIVE cited academic sources. For those who complained, there's the citations. Let's see some from the other side. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
DJ Sith - Jedi Council |
*offical JAC tone of voice* Ulic: Chill out plz. _______________ My car is made of Nerf. |
Halendor - Ex-Student |
Quote: So, yeah. And advice, next time try to come to the argument with something scholarly. I allow opinions, so long as they are educated, which means backing them up with something other than what you heard on the radio and third-hand. So reasonable thinking is not enough? Does simple logic matter? Are we not allowed to think before we mindlessly consume all (biased?) information? And exactly will happen if you don't 'allow' something? If you say 'something scholary', it seeems to me you think that anything you say that is backed up by a paper of some sort, is true. Well, those papers can go either way. And that's the way the cookie crumbles Quote: I'll just tell you all to read it yourselves. Then we can talk. It's not likely that every voter is going to read the Patriot Act. And it's not their task. The people who issue such an act should make clear what's in it, they are the first to give information about it, and if it spins from there, they can correct it. It is not fair to expect of people to have read everything that involves the subject. Quote: I would not be surprised (and I have heard some illusions to) if the US has found something believed to be WMD, but will not risk calling it WMD themselves. An international organization such as the IAEA would be fit for that. But we'll wait for them. I don't think that's very likely. Alot of people are saying that invading Iraq was a bad thing, because the reason they were giving was the WMD, and now they found none. If they did find find WMD, they would just have to say so and everyone might think 'well, a few more WMD that couldn't be used against us - maybe it was all worth it'. Quote: I'll answer briefly (because I have other work to do). Stop it. I'm not going to explain to you why anymore. This comment was edited by Halendor on Mar 20 2004 11:50pm. |
Bandit - Student |
Alright, Ulic... Since it looks like you would like to formally debate this topic, let's do it. But before I respond, how about some actual citation for your references? I'm assuming you know how to do a formal citation. It should include ALL the info needed to find the reference material and leave no ambiguity. I can't check the veracity of your citations, or the claims of the reference material, if I can't find it. Also, just a friendly suggestion... you might want to lay off the arrogance and sarcaism a bit. It probably hurts your position more than anything I can write. Plus, being so sardonic can really alienate people (in case you plan on going into politics). _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) This comment was edited by Bandit on Mar 21 2004 07:41am. |
Buzz - Student |
I don't think you spun it any way ulic except for you coming off as arrogant. Don't insult people by saying they can't read 300 pages of a document that is probably so full of political and legal double talk that only political science majors and lawyers would understand it. I could read it but I choose not to. That's much different than you saying "can't read." There are ways to post your information without coming off as rude to other people you know. Doing it that way just pisses people off and they won't listen to anything you have to say. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
CuZzA - Student |
why do u have to post such long posts? lol! _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
Quote: There was not one good reason to invade Iraq. Not one. Another instance of when Bandit should leave the analysis to people with credibility, and to scholarly sources. Let's start with the list, shall we? One: (taken from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Table 16.1) Quote: Biological Weapon Agent Production Amounts BW AGENT (ORGANISM)...................Anthrax (Bascillus anthracis) DECLARED CONCENTRATED AMOUNT.......8500 liters DECLARED TOTAL AMOUNT..............85,000 liters COMMENTS: UNSCOM estimated production amounts were actually three to four times more than the declared amounts but is unable to confirm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BW AGENT (ORGANISM)................Botulinum Toxin (Clostridium botulinum) DECLARED CONCENTRATED AMOUNT.......19,400 liters (10x and 20x concentrated) DECLARED TOTAL AMOUNT..............380,000 liters COMMENTS: UNSCOM estimated production amounts were actually three to four times more than the declared amounts but is unable to confirm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BW-FILLED AND DEPLOYED DELIVERY SYSTEMS DELIVERY SYSTEM....................Missile warheads-Al Hussein Anthrax: 5 Botulinum Toxin: 16 Aflatoxin:4 COMMENTS: UNSCOM could not confirm the unilateral destruction of these 25 warheads because of conflicting accounts provided by Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHEMICAL WEAPON AGENT STOCKPILES CHEMICAL AGENT.....................VX Declared by Iraq: 100-150 metric tons Potential based on unaccounted precursors: 200 metric tons COMMENTS: Iraq denied producing VX until Hussein Kamil's defection in 1995. Now, let's list the facilities: Quote: Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center Tammuz I (Osiraq), Tammuz II (Isis), and IRT-5000 research reactors (Osiraq destroyed by Israel in 1981); subject to IAEA inspection prior to Gulf War. Site of R&D programs in uranium enrichment, including gas centrifuges, electromagnetic isotope separation, chemical separation, and gaseous diffusion, activities found by IAEA to be in violation of Iraq's safeguard agreement with the IAEA. Location of "hot cells" used for separation of grams of plutonium, activities found by IAEA to be in violation of Iraq's safeguard agreement with the IAEA. Experimental program for the production of lithium-6, which, if irradiated in a reactor, yields tritium for the use in advanced nuclear weapons. Weapons-related R&D activities in nuclear physics, uranium metallurgy, and triggering system capacitors, activities found to be in violation of Iraq's obligations under Article II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibiting the "manufacture" of nuclear weapons. ------------------------------------------------------------ Al Atheer Prime development and testing site for nuclear weaponization program, including facilities and equipment for large-scale uranium metallurgy and production of weapons components; computer simulations of nuclear weapons detonations; and experiments for the development of an implosion-type explosive structure in nearby "bunker" at Al-Hateen. Possible testing of explosive structures at Al Hadre. All these activites found to be in violation of Iraq's obligations under Article II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibiting the "manufacture" of nuclear weapons. ---------------------------------------------------------- Rashdiya Central site of Iraq's centrifuge research and development efforts. So....yeah. No reasons, huh? I see several above, and that's just getting started, and only in the WMD area. So, before someone asks why WE haven't found anything yet, I'll answer briefly (because I have other work to do): WE can't Believe it or not, the US isn't the authority in judging things as violations or not. That's best left to the IAEA or other international organizations. I would not be surprised (and I have heard some illusions to) if the US has found something believed to be WMD, but will not risk calling it WMD themselves. An international organization such as the IAEA would be fit for that. But we'll wait for them. So, yeah. And advice, next time try to come to the argument with something scholarly. I allow opinions, so long as they are educated, which means backing them up with something other than what you heard on the radio and third-hand. And speaking of third-hand: Read the Patriot Act. Or can you not read anything 300 pages long? If you can't read something 300 pages long, then perhaps you should not post your third-hand opinions on it. ." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances. The truth of the matter seems to be that while some portions of the Patriot Act are truly radical, others are benign. Parts of the act formalize and regulate government conduct that was unregulated—and potentially even more terrifying—before. Other parts clearly expand government powers and allow it to spy on ordinary citizens in new ways. Of focus (for those who really can't read something 300 pages long) are these items (I'll leave you to look them up yourselves): Section 213 Section 215 Section 218 So....yeah, only a few pieces out of the whole thing. But if one read the whole thing, maybe you wouldn't be subjected to the spins that people (like Bandit) try to put on it all. I hope I myself have not really spun it pro or con, but I'll just tell you all to read it yourselves. Then we can talk. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 19 2004 09:52pm. |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
Quote: However, before the nuclear issue arose, Bush did label North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil”, along with Iran and Iraq. Erm...no. Clinton was dealing with them long before this "Axis of evil" thing. I would think that most who debate on North Korea would be familiar with the 1994 Agreed Framework. You aren't? Lucky for you I have details here. Again, from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Deadly Arsenals" (what? a SCHOLARLY reference, and not just some info pulled out of nowhere with no references? Yes. Some of us know how to reference things. Try it.) Quote: At the heart of the framework is a trade between North Korea and the United States and its allies. The United States agreed to the establishment of a multinational ed: multinational? you mean, NOT the unilateral warmongering that democrats think we do? consortium that will finance and supply North Korea with two light-water reactors (LWR) by the target date of 2003. This date has slipped considerably, and the current ed: as of this writing target date is estimated for some time in 2009, if not later. In exchange, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program immediately and cease the construction and operation of its nuclear complex under IAEA monitoring. Additionally, Clinton botched a part of it, in a similar fashion that Kerry may botch, and that is this (From Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): Quote: Among the details not worked out [by the Clinton administration] was the future status of missiles already built by North Korea. So Kerry may, most likely, allow North Korea to keep what missiles they have (and possibly some programs), and simply harken back to the policy set out by the 1994 framework, leaving this gap open. That's pretty much the heart of it, but I can go on more. But, wait, didn't North Korea start their nuclear program again? And weren't they in violation for quite some time? So, how did Bush label them in the "Axis of evil" before the nuclear issue, if he wasn't even president before 1994? Smart move Bandit. Try to remember when North Korea's nuclear issues came up, before you try tacking blame on Bush for saying things BEFORE the said nuclear issue. Quote: I think North Korea wants assurances they won’t be invaded and economic aid which was already in place (through oil and food). That's great what you think, Bandit. I'll counter by reffering to something resembling a scholarly source, again from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Quote: It's difficult, because of its extreme political isolation, to predict or fully understand the motives for North Korea's diplomatic and military moves. It's leader, Kim Jong-Il, appears to be concerned primarily with the continued survival of his rule and the regime originally established by his father, Kim Il-Sung. This assessment would explain North Korea's pursuit of both nuclear weapons and missiles, since both activities could, from its perspective, increase its ability to deter an attack from outside powers. In the case of its ballistic missiles, it would provide North Korea with an important source of hard currency for its economic survival. Such steps would accomplish the same goal of improving the chances for the regime's survival. So, the scholars think North Korea is motivated by the survival of their regime. And if they are siding with Kerry, that means they feel that Kerry will allow the function of their regime (nuclear and missile programs) to continue. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 19 2004 06:10pm. |
Axion - Student |
Bandit, you hit the nail right on the head... nice speech/debate man _______________ Axion - Yeah. |
Mookie - Ex-Student |
I think Bandit's post sums up pretty much why I dislike Bush, yes. Of course you're right Ulic, everyone loves to see Saddam dethroned, but I agree with Bandit that the way it happened ain't kosher. |
Bandit - Student |
Quote: That's just off the cuff as to what Bush has done. I think that’s enough, don’t you? Pretty much everything you mentioned really shows why Bush should NOT be elected. Allow me to elucidate. Quote: 70% of Americans feel that America is more secure…. Additionally, measures taken by the Patriot Act, under the Bush administration, would help to cut back on terrorist attacks. Sure. If you’re willing to live in a police state, you can certainly make people more secure. You simply have to eliminate their civil liberties, dilute their rights, and being willing to abuse a few for the benefit of others. It worked well in Nazi Germany, too. Now, before you feign outrage at a comparison to Nazi Germany, let me point out that I am not saying Bush is a Hitler. Simply put, the Patriot Act (and subsequent laws broken up and passed that were originally supposed to make up Patriot Act II) opens dangerous ground. However, the Patriot Act could consume an entire thread of it’s own, so I won’t delve into specifics here. Suffice it to say, it sucks. Quote: Here's an instance of how the Patriot Act would have prevented the 201 lives lost in Madrid: Quote: "A high-ranking Spanish investigator said Zougam had not been arrested during the 2001 crackdown because he was not implicated in specific crimes," the Times reports. Now, of course, he has been. The cost of waiting now stands at 201 lives. Okay, so he was not implicated in specific crimes. What would be done then? Well, under the Patriot Act, he can be arrested, for nothing. Just like any one of us could. Quote: So, the Patriot Act (since it was not in effect in August 2001) would have implicated this man in specific crimes, possibly unraveling or even preventing the attacks in Madrid. How exactly would the Patriot Act have implicated this man in specific crimes? He was not arrested because he was not implicated in specific crimes. The only thing the Patriot Act would have done is 1) either boot him out of the country or 2) hold him indefinitely. Sounds good when you are talking about one of the very few that are actually guilty, but what about the tens or even hundreds of thousands of others adversely impacted by this law? I think there are far better ways to prevent terrorism. Quote: So what has Bush done here? He's working to make things more secure, and working to reduce terrorism to negligible means (there is no way to eliminate terrorism, but we are a long way from having "chance" attacks.) You’re kidding right? If putting your boot down on a collective population is a productive way of making a state secure, don’t you think Israel would be the most secure nation in the world? I mean, they have terrorist attacks every day and they are taking extreme measures. Quote: Additionally, as noted earlier (and I may repost it), Kerry's campaign is being lauded in North Korea, and can seemingly have support of Kim Jong Il. Why? Maybe because Kim Jong II realizes that Bush seriously thinks he is on a divine mission to “clean up the world”. Don’t get me wrong, Kim is a major dick, and I mean a MAJOR dick. The guy has let millions starve because of policies, imprisons three generations of a family for even the allegation that one person may be a political dissident and enjoys blackmailing other nations. However, before the nuclear issue arose, Bush did label North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil”, along with Iran and Iraq. Can you blame him for being paranoid, especially knowing what the connotation of “evil” means to Bush and the fact Bush invaded one of the other labeled nations? What would you expect Kim to do, hand over his one major deterrent to an invasion? We all saw how that impacted Bush's decision towards Iraq. Kim would be stupid to hand over any nukes he might have while Bush is in office. Quote: Because Bush is being too hard on them with their nuclear weapons program. Bush has initiated 6-party talks with North Korea, in an effort to dismantle the program. However, North Korea now wants Kerry to win, so that they can keep their nukes. I doubt it. I think North Korea wants assurances they won’t be invaded and economic aid which was already in place (through oil and food). Quote: Kerry, in his dove politics, would not apply the needed pressure, and would end up being manipulated by North Korea into "cutting a deal" with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to agree to let North Korea keep nukes (not even Kerry)/ Quote: Bush has shown resolve in the face of resistance, by showing dictators such as Saddam and a watching world that we mean what we say. You mean in the face of resistance by our allies? You mean showing the watching world that we won’t hesitate to invade a country when it isn’t necessary? Yup, we showed ‘em. Junior finally found an excuse to finish off that old thorn in daddy’s side. There was not one good reason to invade Iraq. Not one. The fact that everyone likes the fact Saddam is gone doesn’t mean we approve of the means. I’m sure there are a lot of Iraqi families who would agree since they had loved ones die in the invasion. Just think, some of them might even become tomorrows terrorists. Quote: And look at the results: Libya had programs that it abandoned after Bush's display of resolve. Iran is also falling in line. And North Korea was in six-party talks. If a show of force was all it took, don’t you think our attack on Ghadafi when Reagan was in office would have made more of an impact? I mean, we did kill his son didn’t we? No, fact is, Libya has been changing for years now. Gahdalfi just saw an opportune time to curry some favor from the current US administration at a time they needed to show some positive news. Iran, is falling in line? Please explain because I beg to differ. Quote: So here's my question: What will Kerry do to deserve the position, and how will he do it better than our current President? Will he (gasp) keep us out of any other wars? How will North Korea and their nuclear program react to a guy that won't take the US to war against them? Answer that. How will he do it better than Bush? Geez, there are so many ways to answer that… I wouldn’t know how to limit it to just a few. Will he keep us out of any wars? Maybe, maybe not. But he will keep us out of unnecessary wars. You see, Kerry, unlike Bush, is a guy who actually fought in a war and was injured. Kerry understands that war is not a trivial thing. Bush, who has never fought in a battle, sees things from the perspective of one who doesn’t really understand war. Don’t you see the irony? The man who has been wounded in war is the one who truly sees what war is…an option of last resort. The man who never fought in a war is the one that is goes crazed like a kid in a candy store when he gets his own armed force to play with… _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) This comment was edited by Bandit on Mar 18 2004 06:10pm. |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
Ah yes. What has Bush done? 70% of Americans feel that America is more secure now than prior to September 11. Kerry will have the tough task of proving this 70% wrong. Additionally, measures taken by the Patriot Act, under the Bush administration, would help to cut back on terrorist attacks. Here's an instance of how the Patriot Act would have prevented the 201 lives lost in Madrid: Quote: The Los Angeles Times reports that one of the Moroccan suspects arrested after last week's bombings had long been a known al Qaeda associate: Spanish police searched the Madrid apartment of Jamal Zougam in August 2001, according to investigators. The search revealed that Zougam, 30, associated with key figures in a Madrid Al Qaeda cell whose alleged leader, Imad Eddin Barakat, was jailed three months later on suspicion of helping plot the attacks in the United States that year, according to Spanish court documents. "A high-ranking Spanish investigator said Zougam had not been arrested during the 2001 crackdown because he was not implicated in specific crimes," the Times reports. Now, of course, he has been. The cost of waiting now stands at 201 lives. So, the Patriot Act (since it was not in effect in August 2001) would have implicated this man in specific crimes, possibly unraveling or even preventing the attacks in Madrid. I can only see the 201 victims, families, and mourners thanking Kerry to take measures to make sure that terrorists are not as easily detained, and that more terrorism will occur around the world. Terrorism that could be prevented if we make terrorism a war, as it should be. So what has Bush done here? He's working to make things more secure, and working to reduce terrorism to negligible means (there is no way to eliminate terrorism, but we are a long way from having "chance" attacks.) Additionally, as noted earlier (and I may repost it), Kerry's campaign is being lauded in North Korea, and can seemingly have support of Kim Jong Il. Why? Because Bush is being too hard on them with their nuclear weapons program. Bush has initiated 6-party talks with North Korea, in an effort to dismantle the program. However, North Korea now wants Kerry to win, so that they can keep their nukes. So what has Bush done? He's applied pressure, in a multilateral effort, to work to remove nuclear weapons from the hands of a atarchist (yes, atarchy, not anarchy), independent, impoverished, unstable regime. Kerry, in his dove politics, would not apply the needed pressure, and would end up being manipulated by North Korea into "cutting a deal" with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Bush has shown resolve in the face of resistance, by showing dictators such as Saddam and a watching world that we mean what we say. This has aided in talks with North Korea. The nuanced Kerry would not be a convincing. And look at the results: Libya had programs that it abandoned after Bush's display of resolve. Iran is also falling in line. And North Korea was in six-party talks. And Bush states that his critics: Quote: now agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power; they just didn't support removing Saddam from power. Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election." Yes. So what has Bush done? He's removed a dictator that even his critics wished removed, in the only fashion that a dictator can be removed. (Remember that Saddam got 100% of the vote in 2002, he wouldn't be ousted from power by a democratic vote. Only by force.) That's just off the cuff as to what Bush has done. So here's my question: What will Kerry do to deserve the position, and how will he do it better than our current President? Will he (gasp) keep us out of any other wars? How will North Korea and their nuclear program react to a guy that won't take the US to war against them? Answer that. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student |
Bush people, tell me, what has he done to deserve re-election. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) |
Ruuk Haviser - Retired |
Quote: 3) People want to point out that Kerry is allowed to change his opinion but when Bush originally said that capturing Osama is the primary goal, and later on he said it wasn't as much of a concern does everyone want to get all over him about it? If Kerry is allowed to flipflop on every topic in Washington, Bush is allowed to change what he thinks is a priority as more of how Al Quaeda works became evident. Hmm...Buzz, good point. Quote: Oh, and sidenote: Just because something isn't a key issue to voters (like global warming) does not mean that it shouldn't be taken care of. Just that it will not have the drastic impact on the vote, like other issues. All issues should be addressed, yes, but the key ones deserve more focus. Just to clarify what I meant. Ulic...understood. And, btw, thanks for the research info. Very useful. Makes me think...which is the whole point of this forum. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
OK. Have some books. To quote Pakistan's nuclear weapon capability: Quote: Pakistan posesses the components and materials to assemble a small amount of nuclear weapons in a matter of hours or days and has produced enought weopons-grade plutonium to produce between 30 and 50 nuclear weapons (Albright, 2001. Available: www.isis-online.org) In all, Pakistan is thought to have produced between 585 and 800 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and may posess enough weapons-grade plutonium for the production of three to five weapons. Pakistan has nuclear-capable missiles with ranges from 280 kilometers to 2000 kilometers. Pakistan has acquired the bulk of its missile capabilities from China and North Korea. (My note: It is interesting to point out that the assistance from China undercut the Clinton administration's efforts to restore a measure of non-proliferation influence in its relations with Pakistan. I wonder if Kerry will prove as effective as Clinton was, but that's just me. After all, North Korea is cheerin' for him.) North Korea's missile arsenal includes the Chinese-built and supplied M-11, the liquid-fuel Hatf short-range series, the Ghauri medium-range missiles, and the solid-fuel Shaheen series. Pakistan reportedly posesses about 30 muclear-capable M-11 surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 280-300 km. Other missiles have seen testing and some production, including: Ghauri I---1300 km range, 700 kg warhead Ghauri II--2000 km range, 850 kg warhead Shaheen II-2000 km range Also, they have 4 nuclear weapons reactors and devlopment complexes (Khan Research Labratories, Kahuta [note the name Khan, after the black market nuke guy] ; Ras Koh; Kharan Desert; and Pakistan Ordinance Factory, Wah) So a touchy situation. And Pakistan, more specifically, Scomi Precision Engineering, was at the heart of five crates of centrifuge parts siezed en route to Libya. There are also connections being analyzed as to Pakistan sending materials to Iran. So. Foreign policy. Let's review the past 2.5 years, OK? The US was attacked by terrorists, has overthrown two govenrnments and is still fighting some ground battles against guerillas in Afghanistan and Irad, while spending some good amount of money to do so (although if you look at the amount of money actually being spent there in terms of a percentage, it isn't that big of a deal. The amount Bush requested for Iraq was only about HALF of what Congress spends in a day. So chew on that.) Since September 11, Bush has outlined a distinctive, even coherent, foreign policy. And he even tried to involve the UN at points, but not at sacrifice to policy. Kerry has yet (as far as I know) to really outline any good foreign policy. But I recall him wishing to cut back on the "Not-a-war on terrorism" (He doesn't like calling it a war, except to bash Bush for using images of a war for his campaigning. How can Bush use images of a war if Kerry doesn't think it is a war? Or is it really a war but Kerry can't admit it? Is this the duality we wish for a leader? Anyways...) So Kerry has two bad choices that he might actually take. One is to be anti-Bush Foreign Policy (ABFP). With ABFP, it'd work well to stir support with the democrats, but not with the general public in the general election. As noted earlier, most undecided, and even most Democrats, don't ride along too much with a fury towards Bush. They go along with issues, not just the anti-Bush stance. So ABFP is a bad idea. Next is Bush Foreign Policy 0.5 (BFP.5) This will be a, er, lite version of what Bush is seeking. But how is that really original? Most voters will go for Bush Foreign Policy (BFP) than go with BFP.5. Why settle for the buggy beta when you can have the full retail version, right? So Kerry would be bad off with a "buggy beta" version of Bush's policies. But Bush does have coherent and radical strategies. Kerry needs to address the threats to America, and find its stance within the world. But not by going back to the failures of the Clinton administration, and without doing either the ABFP or the BFP.5. So it'll be tough. And many will be listning to what he comes up with. Especially me. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
OK. Continuing. Pakistan is tricky to deal with because of what many call its function of 'a veritable Wal-Mart" for nuclear weapons buyers, tied to Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan (hehe, wrath of Khan. KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!) Combine this "wal-mart" with Fissile material stored in such places as Kazakstan and Kinshasa, better designs since 1945, readily available centrifuge plans and parts (such as aluminum tubing that was being shipped to Iraq. Used for missile tubes my ass. They were too high quality. Centrifuge quality.), and possibly North Korea. Let's look at North Korea. An atarchy (not anarchy), which strives to be independent. They really do cut themselves off, and as such, they have dire poverty and hunger, and nothing to sell but drugs, guns, missiles and missile tech--and possibly nukes. Tie this in with my earlier post about North Korea's support for Kerry as president, so that they can keep their nuclear program, and you have a large nuclear proliferation problem. I would think that the spread of nuclear weapons would be a top issue with most voters. I sure hope so. Here's the catches (and maybe where Bush is failing. Maybe.): Pakistan is believed to be the world's most dangerous breeding ground for both WMD and terror (I'll bring this up once I go through some of my larger reference books, evidence of this forthcoming, but I have to leave again soon.) But Pakistan is also a ket US ally. So we have to take a lot of the, um, lack of control that Pakistani President Musharraf has over the situation. But we do get the IAEA (note that the I stands for INTERNATIONAL, meaning NOT JUST THE US) to apply pressure. Most of the progress in these matters is due to the IAEA. But, yeah, hafta go again. Busy week. I'll try to tackle a few points later on: 1. The IAEA's importance in WMD (even Iraq) 2. Problems with Pakistan and terror/WMD 3. Where ALL this is leading to....a leader with a good grasp of Foreign Affairs, and someone that can take a hawkish stance on things. But we can argue over who that is later. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 16 2004 01:49am. |
Ulic Belouve - Student |
Hrm. Well, I'm going to get to the Osama issue first. See, here's the thing. It is believed that Osama has been hiding in the mountainous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US forces can operate on the Afghanistan side (and we are), but not on the Pakistani side. Why? Well, there are Islamis extremists (blamed for two recent attempts to assasinate President Pervez Musharraf) that do not welcome the US presence there, and they have a lot of political clout. It's believed that (through a supposed Pentagon leak) that the US might reach into Pakistan in 2004, but that it would be "political dynamite" for Musharraf. Rumors have it (prom supposed leaks) that we may do something below the radar, but Pakistan doesn't seem to be the most friendly with us. I can dig up instances if I wish. My feelings: Kerry wouldn't put the pressure onto Pakistan, nor would he operate covertly in Pakistan to catch bin Laden. He's shown his dove side, and the Democrats criticize Bush for not nabbing bin Laden yet. But Kerry wouldn't do what is needed to get bin Laden either. He vowed to keep us out of conflict. So he'll keep bin Laden free. Er...damn, I gotta get going again. I'll write more on Pakistan, maybe, but will focus on Bush and Foreign Affairs. It may be a key issue in the election. Oh, and sidenote: Just because something isn't a key issue to voters (like global warming) does not mean that it shouldn't be taken care of. Just that it will not have the drastic impact on the vote, like other issues. All issues should be addressed, yes, but the key ones deserve more focus. Just to clarify what I meant. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
Plo Koon - Student |
i know they werent looking for Osama bin Laden in Iraq what i ment they should look for him more,its that "Osama" organized it,created the idea and gathered followers to do that sickening deed,that coward _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This comment was edited by Plo Koon on Mar 16 2004 12:38am. |
Buzz - Student |
1) They weren't looking for Osama in Iraq 2) They have not found Osama YET. They are still looking. 3) People want to point out that Kerry is allowed to change his opinion but when Bush originally said that capturing Osama is the primary goal, and later on he said it wasn't as much of a concern does everyone want to get all over him about it? If Kerry is allowed to flipflop on every topic in Washington, Bush is allowed to change what he thinks is a priority as more of how Al Quaeda works became evident. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
Halendor - Ex-Student |
Quote: i really dont like Bush,we shouldve went after Osama the bastard who actually flew the planes into the WTC's Huh? 1. Osama didn't fly the planes in the WTC 2. If he did, there would be no point searching him, 'cause he would already be dead 3. They did try and capture him, but couldn't find him in Afghanistan (nor in Iraq) |
Plo Koon - Student |
kerry's gonna make bush look like a fool bush had a rich dad so he could get him into the Coast Guard or something so he didnt have to go fight in Vietnam while Kerry was actually shot in vietnam. _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This comment was edited by Plo Koon on Mar 16 2004 12:37am. |
< Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |