Why President Bush should be Re-elected

[Donnie]

It's allways interesting when the war is evil crowd argues for more, or different, war.

so true, like they would really be OK with us going to war with n. korea, or iran.

[smilingassassin]

"However, the criticism of Kerrys "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" remark is oversimplified."

I beg to differ, his statement oversimplifys the enemy's cause, it basically states that the U.S. is in the wrong and therefor by fighting the Americans in Iraq the terrorists are in the right.

[smilingassassin]

"There were other threats greater at the time Iraq was invaded, i.e. North Korea and Iran"

Emigine a senario where France, Germany, Russia and the UN acctually backed the invasion of Iraq. Sufficient troops would be freed to put pressure on Iran, and Iraq's suffering would be less prolonged.

Support for the war or not, you cannot egnore the tactical advantage of having a free and democratic Iraq smack dab in the middle of the ME, with borders on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

[Ghostbuster]

Support for the war or not, you cannot egnore the tactical advantage of having a free and democratic Iraq smack dab in the middle of the ME, with borders on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

A "free and democratic" Iraq is going to be an Iranian style democracy since Shias are majority in Iraq. Saddam was secular, he was able to keep the Islamists in check. Now that Iraq has "freedom and democracy", Islamists would be able to form an "Islamic Republic of Iraq", something the Bush Administration probably a did not anticpiate. It is a big pandora box and has the potential of unleashing a Shia uprising in other ME states thus further destabilizing ME.

[smilingassassin]

A "free and democratic" Iraq is going to be an Iranian style democracy since Shias are majority in Iraq. Saddam was secular, he was able to keep the Islamists in check. Now that Iraq has "freedom and democracy", Islamists would be able to form an "Islamic Republic of Iraq", something the Bush Administration probably a did not anticpiate. It is a big pandora box and has the potential of unleashing a Shia uprising in other ME states thus further destabilizing ME.

Pure speculation at this point. Just because they are Shia dosn't mean they will follow Iran's lead.

[Ghostbuster]

Pure speculation at this point. Just because they are Shia dosn't mean they will follow Iran's lead.

The shia muslims of the world traditionally look towards Iran, and the Sunnis look towards Saudi Arabia. The most revered cleric in Iraq is Ayatulluah Sistani, who himself is an Iranian. Ayatullah Sistani will have a major say in the future Shia dominated Iraqi politics, without his support no politician will win election in the Shia majority area.

[Ray]

one difference, sadam was already proven guilty, he made a plea bargain, and was put on parole, then didnt live up to his end of the agreement, breaking parole. this was not a seperate trial, but a continuation of the first one in 1991.

your analogy doesnt fit.

While I support the 'war on terror' nad the US but I find certain issues are contradictory and I can't wear blinkers about it.

Now, if the US is beyond the International Court of Justice (ICJ), then it has no right to try anyone including Milosevic since they can also claim that they are beyond the pale of the International Court of Justice! Therefore, there is no justification for the US or anyone to gloat that they have a 'fugitive from justice'.

As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!

And after this election, ask Bush and Kerry!

Therefore, this moral high horse appears to me to be pretty much of bunk.

If the US is beyond the realm of international justice, who the Dickens are they do dole out justice?

[Fonnicker]

While I support the 'war on terror' nad the US but I find certain issues are contradictory and I can't wear blinkers about it.

Now, if the US is beyond the International Court of Justice (ICJ), then it has no right to try anyone including Milosevic since they can also claim that they are beyond the pale of the International Court of Justice! Therefore, there is no justification for the US or anyone to gloat that they have a 'fugitive from justice'.

As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!

And after this election, ask Bush and Kerry!

Therefore, this moral high horse appears to me to be pretty much of bunk.

If the US is beyond the realm of international justice, who the Dickens are they do dole out justice?

Well said.

[smilingassassin]

When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.

[Fonnicker]

When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.

Which of our enemies wrote the laws governing war crimes and accountability?

[Ghostbuster]

When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.

That's interesting. Which enemies exactly you are talking about? Do you mean all those who wrote the international law are enemies of USA or you have specific names you can name?

[Ray]

International law written by ENEMIES?

Which world do you live in?

Pal, the UN is also a creation of the US.

Can the world sneeze with out the US having a cold?

It is a patriotic feeling to say " My country right or wrong' but it is greater to say 'My contry is always RIGHT sand screw you'.

Say it with all your heart, but don't befuddle with 'political correectness' and deficit in logic.

[Confed999]

It is a patriotic feeling to say " My country right or wrong' but it is greater to say 'My contry is always RIGHT sand screw you'.

smilingassassin isn't American, he's Canadian...

[Confed999]

As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!

The courts ruled that the states are allowed to have their own election rules, just as it should be. The same courts have struck down many parts of the Patriot Act, for example, so they aren't as partisan as some believe.

[Ray]

Confed,

I was expecting something from you and it came.

But as usual it was very gently put. I know how you feel and appreciate that.

However, Patriot Act (I am not debating the rights and wrongs) is for the safety of ALL of the USA. Now, if the States have the right to create loopholes, imagine the hassle of those States to which the terrorists can sneak in because of lax laws of a neighbouring State.

Though the US Election is decided by the Electoral College and thus it appears within the jurisdiction of the State to decided how it is to be conducted, but in my opinion, if it is to select the US President, then maybe a central type of law and juridisdiction maybe a more fair way to ensure that there is level playing field for all voters no matter which state the voter is in.

In my opinion, if something affects the WHOLE country then there should be the Federal Law, but if it pertains to a State, it should be a State law.

That of course is my opinion.