Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Who is the best man?

    Originally posted by Christine
    From everything I’ve seen, read and watched I am not sure anymore about who is the best man to lead our country.

    Both main options have their flaws and qualities (yes guys, admit and agree with me on that much). Besides the hard times that we are now living in, I think this year’s election could become a turning point for our nation, for better or worse. If we take a look at Kerry, we can honestly say that we do agree with him that our economy is not in the greatest shape ever. But it isn’t Bush or this Administration’s fault. It has been scientifically proven that after long periods of prosperity, deficits come in, whether we like it or not, it is part of the economy’s cycle or so they say. So we can’t blame Bush for our present economy/recession but we can thank him neither. Because going to war in simple terms and to middle class citizens means more taxes. The following are some of the reasons why Democrats believe Bush should not be reelected:

    • Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.
    • Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;
    • Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.
    • Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.
    • Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.
    • Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.

    However the criticism continues from Bush’s campaign people, their biggest point is that Senator Kerry keeps flip flopping on issues such as going to Iraq, sending our troops, gay marriage and abortion. Democrats believe that Kerry is our best choice as Commander in Chief because he is a war veteran himself (even though it happened 30 years ago and the scenario was completely different); he has more knowledge on international affairs. On the other hand Republicans have a pile of Kerry’s voting record- and that speaks for itself, no need to go into it deeper. Democrats insist that Kerry understands the challenges that our troops face in the 9/11 post era.

    Our President and candidate from the Republican Party for this year’s election accepts that there is a lot of anger and that we are living in very serious and dangerous times. Most of the time our President is giving constant explanations for every decision we make in regards to our foreign policies.

    He also admits that most people in the States care about their families and the economy. But that we are also concerned about what our government is doing to secure our country. The debate should be, for this year’s election, about who is the best to lead war. It’s imperative to trial terrorists overseas before they hit us at home.

    George W. Bush believes that the United States has the obligation to lead, through coalition ( but we went to war alone). He maintains that not only the U.S. government believed that there were weapons of mass destruction but so did other nations. And so our mission from finding weapons of mass destruction has switched to free Iraq, to complete our mission in order to make sure that our military men and women don’t die in vain. Mr. Bush stated in Larry King’s exclusive that right now there are 30 nations in Iraq, to support the actions of our military and to help rebuild that country.

    Comments: Is it worth it? By freeing Iraq, are we free from terrorism? The truth is that Iraq is in the heartland of the Middle East, therefore Sadan Hussein could have become a good asset for Al Qaida’s network if he would have remained in power. Some may argue that bin Laden actually despised Hussein and such alliance would never have happened. However, Al Qaida’s network is wider than just the ideas of bin Laden…so we will never know the answer to that remote possibility. Additionally we are just beginning; Iraq is one of our first steps but not the entire formula. On the other hand, we should have finished our work and mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan before undertaking other targets.

    Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil. They are two men, with interesting backgrounds but have made mistakes too. One last question and statement: Are we going to vote this year with the principle of: “Who is the best man” or “which one is a lesser evil?” (I am not saying that one of them is evil- it is just a term that is commonly used.) . This is also not about turning it into a philosophical problem. My question is simply: Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium; no anarchist answers are welcomed.
    Your points reflect a deep-thinking and concerned person who is perplexed about the future of our nation.

    This Presidential election is November is perhaps the most important in recent memory. Voters are faced with two major concerns: [1] foreign policy;and [2] domestic issues.

    On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists from Al-Queda managed to capture four airplanes and crash their "WMD's" into the NY twin towers, the Pentagon and the farmlands of Pennsylvania [destined for Wash, D.C.]. The devastating results would cost 3000+ precious lives, and tens of thousands of others would be adversely affected for the remainder of their lives.

    Following that "day in infamy," we responded. Although our leaders were ill-prepared to deal with this horrendous attack, President Bush chose to insert our troops into Afghanistan; take out the Taliban; and destroy Al-Queda. That endeavor remains ongoing and perhaps due to political obstructions by Pakistan, our efforts to capture/destroy Ben-Laden have been impinged.

    Based upon the intelligence reports of some 15 separate agencies [often at odds with other], we sincerely believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction [WMD's]. We also feared the possible transfer of these deadly devices into the hands of Al-Queda operatives. And if these fears were ever realized, then tens of thousands of Americans could perish.

    Based on this information, Bush reacted and decided to pre-emptively invade Iraq. By doing this, he hopefully could remove the threat of WMD's; oust Hussein from "insane" power, greed and merciless killing of innocents; and establish a thread of democracy in the Middle East which could [over time] create an example which "may" have a rippling effect on other despot regimes.

    Over one year later, we remain engaged in Irag but the following good things have happened: no use of WMD's on our troops or others; Hussein jailed and waiting trial for despicable crimes; and a Constitutional government is forming which holds the promise for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No question, however, this monumental effort will require years to realize the fruit.

    As I close in this initial reply, please understand that on September 11, 2001 - the countries of France, Germany, Russia and China were not attacked! They lost none of their citizens due to Al-Queda terror! And the irony is that if any of these nations had been assaulted due to our policies or for other geo-political reasons, President George W. Bush would have been the first to have telephoned the Presidential leaders; extended condolences to the victims; and then pledged whole-hearted support to eradicate Al-Queda with or without the support of the United Nations!

    The United States of America can never afford to subject its security to the political whims of the United Nations, NATO or other international organization who renders its decisions based upon current political climates! While it is definitely wise to seek the counsel of world leaders and to evaluate their recommendations, no U.S. President can ever become subservient to the vacilliating views of politicians who lack character, courage and integrity.

    Based upon information presented to the public, President Bush demonstrated wisdom when he led our nation through the post-9/11 chaos; united us to counter Al-Queda; decisively attacked Bin-Laden in Afghanistan; and invaded Iraq to prevent the unlawful sale/transfer of WMD's. While the struggle is fierce and will be so for years to come, the motive is right and the outcome will promote the longevity our Constitutional democracy.

    One final thought: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!"

    John :)

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by pgmatg
      Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
      Oh please, known devil (actually Bush is not) is far better than unknown angel! Considering the fact that Kerry said he'll bring back the soldiers from Iraq makes him weak and not dependable.

      John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
      Kerry is a thinking man? We dont need a thinking man, we need some one who can think and act! BTW rest of the stuff is Economics 101, you dont need a presidential nominee to know this!
      A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

      Comment


      • #93
        As I close in this initial reply, please understand that on September 11, 2001 - the countries of France, Germany, Russia and China were not attacked! They lost none of their citizens due to Al-Queda terror!
        Actually, Russia facing terror threats from Chechenya, is doing the same thing that Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Same with China, they litreally killed all the Uigher rebels, they did the same to the Tibetean rebels.

        So every country on the planet will do the same thing when their intrests or nation is attacked.

        People say for eg France who question US invasion of Iraq tend to forget what they've done in the past or doing right now as we speak. Prolly France should think about Africa before they accuse USA.
        A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

        Comment


        • #94
          Heh, what they're doing in France makes Gitmo look like child's play.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • #95
            In choosing Bush or Kerry, I think it would be best to look at history.

            After 9/11 the news said all air traffic was grounded. That was not correct because President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.

            As it turns out the FBI has a list of persons that shouldnt have been allowed to leave. The #2 man at the FBI was supposed to check to make sure none of the persons flying out of the USA after 9/11 on these special flights were on the FBI's list. As it turns out a number of individuals were on that list and they were allowed to leave the country without ever being interrogated, all under the authorization of President Bush.

            If anyone would care to tell me why President Bush allowed these planes to fly I would appreciate that.

            Kerry has been to war, Bush has not. Bush could have gone to Vietnam, but opted to join the National Guard and not even finish service.

            I am curious why are US troops in Iraq? And why is the pentagon saying that Iran should have been the target?

            New American Century.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by pgmatg
              And health care should be a right not a luxury.
              Why does the government owe you health care? Where in the US can you not get health care? Careful, there was a time I didn't have insurance, and I had major surgery, just by going to a public hospital emergency room. No health care? BS, all I needed...

              Kerry is an admited war criminal, appeaser and tax raiser.
              Originally posted by 64usmc86
              pre-emptively invade Iraq
              Iraq had broken a cease-fire 12 years before, thus Saddam made the first move, making the invasion reactive, not pre-emptive. ;)
              Originally posted by tw-acs
              President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.
              I know OBL's brother-in-law, he was allowed to leave because of the fear he would be attacked in retaliation. I'm glad too, he's a decent guy, might as well be an American, from what I can tell. He has since returned.
              Originally posted by tw-acs
              Kerry has been to war, Bush has not.
              As of today, Bush has over 3 years experience being Commander-In-Chief, Kerry has 0 experience.
              Originally posted by tw-acs
              I am curious why are US troops in Iraq?
              Because the ruling party was evil, and made the invasion legal.
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment


              • #97
                It was called a pre emptive war. If it was not a pre emptive war then why was it called such.

                What about the FBI's list of persons that should have been interrogated, that list should have been checked with the list of persons flying out, the #2 FBI man said was supposed to have interrogations on all persons leaving on those flights htat should have been interrogated, he had no interrogations done.

                In Bush's 3 years as Commander in Chief IMHO has seriously messed up the United States of America.

                Who gives you the right to determine who is right or wrong?

                And if you say something about how he treated his people why did we arm him? and why did we not remove him from power ealrier? and why did the US administration talk about WMD?

                5-7 years.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  It was called a pre emptive war. If it was not a pre emptive war then why was it called such.
                  People not paying attention to history. Why? Do you disagree with my reasoning above? Feel free to tell me why. ;)
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  What about the FBI's list of persons that should have been interrogated, that list should have been checked with the list of persons flying out, the #2 FBI man said was supposed to have interrogations on all persons leaving on those flights htat should have been interrogated, he had no interrogations done.
                  I didn't say anything about it, because I agree they should have been interrogated before/while they were being evacuated. I only know the one guy, I've done business with him several times before. (OMG! I have connections to OBL, just like GWB!) All I can tell you is why he said he was evacuated, and it matched what the government said at the time of the evacuations.
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  In Bush's 3 years as Commander in Chief IMHO has seriously messed up the United States of America.
                  Too liberal for me, but nowhere near as liberal as Kerry. From what I've seen of Gore lately, I'm really really really glad he isn't the Prez.
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  Who gives you the right to determine who is right or wrong?
                  The truth will sort out who is right or wrong, sooner or later. I don't remember ever saying I could tell who is right or wrong without some evidence. That's why I don't go in for the conspiracy theory stuff.
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  And if you say something about how he treated his people why did we arm him?
                  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sadly it's as simple as that. I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now, but I understand why they do it.
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  why did we not remove him from power ealrier?
                  Foolishly thought the UN would take care of it. That's happening in alot of places right now.
                  Originally posted by tw-acs
                  why did the US administration talk about WMD?
                  Because they thought it was a slam-dunk in the UN. Unfortunately it turned out there were countries in the Security Council, and maybe the UN itself, still on Saddam's side...
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by pgmatg
                    John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S.

                    And Kerry is SO concerned about this, the vast majority of his wife's manufacturing plants are overseas. Pgmatg, you are deluding yourself if you believe any of what Kerry says. Look at his voting record. He will jack-up taxes, cut the military, and leave us exposed again, just like Klinton, except for worse, because then we'll be kowtowing to corrupt and incompetent Europe. Of course, if you want to follow the endorsements of a criminal like Chirac, who's only reason for being out of jail is that he's president and immune, or Kim Jong Il, that's your right. Just keep in mind you're making an effort to throw away such rights under Kerry.


                    To Tw-acs...

                    It's being called a "pre-emtpive" war to skew the facts. Sadam violated the cease-fire terms, we legally invaded.

                    How is the United States messed-up? Bush is just cleaning up the trash of the past 15 years. He has had the ROUGHEST presidency since Nixon...And guess what, both inherited a dirty house from Democrats.

                    We armed Sadam to check Iranian fundimentalism from spreading. We should have removed him in 1991, but guess what, we listened to the UN and Arab leaders and refrained from doing so. This is called an "example" and a "lesson," and is the reason we don't listen to such morons, now, because of their obviously stellar track record. We talked about WMD because all sources said he had them, including the democrats and the UN. At any rate, it wasn't a WMD-or-nothing situation, it was just part of the whole. You've just been conned into believing it is. Remember, Sadam violated the cease-fire on many levels, WMD is actually a red-herring.
                    The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

                    I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

                    Comment


                    • I would like to make something ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

                      The Invasion of Iraq was NEITHER APPROVED NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE UN! By the same token, it was NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL by International Law. The fact is that both the US and the UK got a veto in the UN which makes any move to state the Iraq War illegal void and thus no one tried.

                      So, people, get off the stint about the legallity and concentrate on what went right and what went wrong. The legal points are worthless ... as they've ALWAYS been.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                        I would like to make something ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

                        The Invasion of Iraq was NEITHER APPROVED NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE UN! By the same token, it was NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL by International Law.
                        Without a ruling stating it was illegal, it is by default legal, right? Do prior agreements have any precidence in the absence of another agreement making the former agreement void?
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                        The legal points are worthless ... as they've ALWAYS been.
                        To some, for others it makes all the difference in the world.

                        As to the rights and wrongs, my major complaint is timing. Iraq should not have happened until Afghanistan were much further along. I'm not qualified to Monday quarterback the military operations, but it seems there needs to be alot more troops, and cops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Confed999
                          Without a ruling stating it was illegal, it is by default legal, right? Do prior agreements have any precidence in the absence of another agreement making the former agreement void?
                          Even if it was illegal, the UN have never punished the aggressors and always had to pick up the pices without forcing the agreesor to pay for those actions.

                          Originally posted by Confed999
                          To some, for others it makes all the difference in the world.
                          If they're not willing to put up, they should shut up.

                          Originally posted by Confed999
                          As to the rights and wrongs, my major complaint is timing. Iraq should not have happened until Afghanistan were much further along. I'm not qualified to Monday quarterback the military operations, but it seems there needs to be alot more troops, and cops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
                          Doesn't matter if we were wrong with Iraq. We're stuck with Iraq. We have to fix Iraq.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                            Doesn't matter if we were wrong with Iraq. We're stuck with Iraq. We have to fix Iraq.
                            I know Iraq wasn't wrong, and I agree with the rest, but I certainly don't know how to do it, in Iraq or Afghanistan. It seems all that can be done is to keep the peace until the locals can keep it themselves. The only other thing I would suggest is they fight it like a war, and it doesn't seem they are.

                            Also, with the lack of anything contradicting the original deal, I still believe the invasion was legal. Personally I think the legality is proof of another deal with a bad guy, and you know how much I dislike that...
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • If it was not a pre empitive war the US administration would not have said it was a pre emptive war.

                              The USA is not the UN, therefore can not act uniliaterally in enforcing UN policies because it is not the UN.

                              Why were the Saudi's allowed to leave they did no share the name Bin Laden?

                              Do you have evidence saying waht is right or wrong? If so what is the evidence and what is your arguement justifying an act or a series of acts and which act or acts would you be talking about?

                              It was not a slam dunk, because it may be possible to mislead one nation but it is much more difficult to mislead other nations too.

                              5-7 years to maybe possessing a nuke. NEVER having ability to possess a weapons delivery system capable of reaching USA.

                              THats some of the intelligence used to justify war on Iraq because of WMD, how is that an imminent threat?

                              Comment


                              • Learnt some new American stuff on this forum and I want to use it even if they are not in context.

                                FUBAR and well I have forgotten the next! :)


                                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                                HAKUNA MATATA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X