How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Presidential Debates

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


75 posted 10-09-2004 01:41 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, I have to disagree. And wouldn't it be a dull world if we all agreed on everything?  

I don't think that Bush has handled everything as well as it might have been handled, and he does have some policies and issues that I don't agree with. The Iraq issue just isn't one of them.

I see Bush as more competent with regard to the war on terror, someone who will see it through, and won't cut and run and leave a job undone for the sake of being popular. I see him as someone who says what he believes and does what he says. I see Kerry as more of a political opportunist, saying what he believes is politcally advantageous at any given moment, even when those statements are contradictory.

My mind wasn't made up ahead of time. I'm not a Republican, and have voted for Democrats in the past. But given the choices that we have been given, and after having seen what each offers, I have to go with Bush.

Kerry's record in the Senate, as well as his involvement with the VVAW, of which I only recently became aware, lead me to believe that he is not the man for the job at this time in our history. He has voted against war, even when his 'global test' criteria was fully met (Kuwait). He has consistently voted against a strong defense, against a strong intelligence, against tax reduction, against reforming Medicare and Social Security.


L.R., I already stated several times that I am not talking about merely protesting a war. I am talking about consorting with the enemy and becoming their mouthpiece to achieve one's objective. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that his protest was untainted by collusion with the enemy and only used as a tool by the enemy in their propagandistic efforts still doesn't say much for his wisdom in putting himself in such a position in the first place. He should never have involved himself in a group that consorted with the enemy, let alone have become their spokesperson. He should never have promoted and funded their efforts after he learned of their meetings with the Viet Cong. Yes, he eventually did leave that group after talk turned to murdering politicians, but he was still their spokesperson after that meeting for almost two more years, until 1972, according to the FBI.

I'm sure there were incidences of atrocities in the war. I'm not disputing that. They happen in every war to some extent. What I am disputing is Kerry's spin that they were widespread, up-and-down the chain of command and embraced as an accepted policy by our military and the branding our troops as war criminals. Kerry even recently said that  his rhetoric in his testimony was a bit over-the-top. Kerry had a right to protest, a right to tell the truth. What he didn't have was a right to lie in his quest to end the war.

People can read or view his testimony in its entirety and make up their own mind about it. Was it the truth that he told, under oath, or over-the-top rhetoric? Whichever conclusion one reaches, It seems Kerry would agree.  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


76 posted 10-09-2004 03:39 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
I don't think that Bush has handled everything as well as it might have been handled, and he does have some policies and issues that I don't agree with


That this is the extent of your critique of Bush, reveals why utter dismay and disbelief surface in my responses. There are policies and issues that you should be horrified with Denise.

We disagree entering Iraq, that's fine, but the tactics with which the administration went forward with the war should disturb you as a citizen. Clear evidence showing the use of false intelligence(debunked not after, but before the war began), clear conflicts of interest(Haliburton to name but one for god's sake!) and the unexplained protection of Saudi Arabia in the no-flight aftermath of 9/11 and more importantly as a target of the war terror?

But I do agree with you on one thing, it's been anything but dull arguing our views. I should point out again that I agree with certain conservative views, I'm not anti-Republican. I am, however, against the various and frightening Neo-Con/Religious Reich views Bush has pandered too. More importantly, I'm against an administration that so casually misleads and exploits its citizens.

We've seen what Bush can do as a president and based on that and the state we're now in, it's time to seriously rethink and make a change.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


77 posted 10-09-2004 08:22 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
that he had no control over what the Vietnamese would do or not do with his testimony is a fact


Ah, but this is the one thing that I think he should have considered. Actually, I think the whole anti-war movement made this mistake -- to see the Vietnamese communists as innocent victims.

My point is that he did make a mistake here. That he should not have been as naive as apparently he was.

Luckily, he has grown out of that. Given his comments on Islamo-fascism and others, he fully understands that the world is not one of us versus them, (or if you want, the powerful versus the powerless -- are enemies are power players too) but of realpolitik.

I stand by the neo-con vision of stable, secular democratic governments all over the world, but let's not pretend that it's going to happen over night, and let's stop pretending that the rightness of this vision will sustain us when we're dealing with power players.

Ah hell, let's just stop pretending.
  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


78 posted 10-09-2004 08:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"We've seen what Bush can do as a president and based on that and the state we're now in, it's time to seriously rethink and make a change."

...or not.

I've seen what Bush has done as president, and based on that and the state we're now in, I vote to give him four more years.

Overall, I think he's done a very good job under very tough and trying circumstances. Afghanistan is having free elections right now, Iraq will be having free elections in January. Saddam is no longer around. Iraqi civilians are no longer living under his tyranny and suffering death and brutality at his hands. His sons are no longer raping and torturing women. He can no longer provide safe-haven for terrorists. And when the situation in Iraq is more stable, we will be positioned to deal with Iran and Syria if we need to. Libya turned over its nuclear capabilities and materials. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have pledged their cooperation and help in the war on terror. The suicide bombings in Israel have decreased dramatically since Saddam isn't paying the killers' family members $25,000 any longer. We've discovered the real reason that France, Germany and Russia would not join the coalition.

I'd say we and the world are much safer, and smarter, now than we were before.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


79 posted 10-10-2004 04:07 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

It's hard to argue that logic because I see no logic to your comments. That isn't meant as a shot just seems illogical that the rational applied to your critique of other countries, organizations and parties isn't applied to the administration.

One issue you continually ignore is that it was never a question of Saddam's tyranny, but whether an attack was justified. Everything the adminstration brought forth to justify their attack on the immenent threat of Iraq has proven false. To sugarcoat this fact, the administration and it's followers instead point to the evils Saddam and we are better off without him. That's simply not the issue, the reasons and manner in which the war has been handled IS.

The fact of the matter is the world would be a better place without alot of things. Iranian/N. Korean nuclear ambitions, the instability in many African nations(read up on the attrocities including rape, torture and cannibalism there), Middle East affairs, Haiti and the list goes on. All of these, ALL of these should have taken precedence over attacking Iraq especially with what we now all know.

Free elections in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan still isn't secure. Free elections in Iraq, well take a look at the increase in battles and tell me if you think it's secure. Come on, take a good look at Iraq. Even staunch conservatives like Bob Novak are realising what a mess things are.

We and he world are much safer, and smarter, now than we were before? Tell that to the families of innocent Spanish, Russian, Israeli,Palestinian,Pakistani and Iraqi victims caught in the crossfire as insurgency, terrorist enrollment and activities have increased and become bolder since the war began.

Take care, enjoy your vote
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


80 posted 10-10-2004 10:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, you still insist on saying that the President presented Iraq as an imminent threat, when what he did say was that we could not afford to wait, given the realities of 9/11, until the threat was imminent, that when the threat was imminent, it would be too late to act. You may disagree with his rationale, but that is what he said.

Despite the liberal contention that Saddam had no connections with Al Qaida, that's just not the case. He may not have had any operational links with 9/11, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have links and didn't provide safe-haven to terorists. There was a report on ABC back in 1998, I believe, that he had offered Osama bin Laden safe-haven, telling him he was welcome in his country at any time. And despite some of their ideological differences, they were willing to work together against the U.S. : "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of deal.

"Especially given what we now all know", if "what we now all know" turns out to be valid, (I still believe that Saddam shipped what he had to Syria just prior to and during the early part of the war) is Monday-morning quarterbacking, Raph. We went on the intelligence that we had back then. If the intelligence proved faulty, that just highlights the importance of maintaining a sufficient level of funding to ensure a strong, reliable intelligence service, and not significantly reducing funding to it, and hampering its ability to gather reliable intelligence by tying its hands with all sorts of new cumbersome regulations as happened throughout the Clinton years.

I don't agree that Saddam's tyranny was never an issue. The rationale to go to war was never 'just about' WMD's. The rationale was that being the type of person that Saddam had proven to be, we could no longer continue to ignore the threat he posed to the U.S., especially in light of the fact that he continued to be uncooperative in any attempts to bring him into compliance with the long string of resolutions regarding his weapons capabilities. Some people seem to forget that Saddam had been playing games with the U.N. for 12 years and had been given many opportunites to come clean. He would not account for many of the weapons that the U.N. knew that he had in the early 90's. Would it have been prudent for the U.S. not to have acted, knowing that he had connections with known terrorists, knowing that he himself was a terrorist who funded terrorists like the PLO, knowing the weapons that he once had, that the world could only assume that he still did have, given the fact that Saddam would not give a full accounting, and when all the intelligence agencies of the world, not just U.S. intelligence, said he still had them? The ball was in his court, clearly, Raph, and he blew it.

And why should all of those atrocities in all those other countries have taken precedence? Who's call is that? Saddam was committing atrocities in his country as well. Remember, he's the guy who had people put through meat-grinders while they were still alive. Why not deal with Iraq first, instead of second, third, or fifth, or not at all? Why not?

Free elections in Afghanistan, I think Ali said for the first time in 500 years, and where even the women are allowed to vote, yes that is a big deal, a very big deal. And it's a big step in the right direction.

Yes, things in Iraq are messy right now, and will get even more so leading up to their elections. That has been predicted for months now. The insurgents are desperate and are acting out their desperation. But is tyranny better than messy? War is messy, but I think most people would agree that their freedom is worth it.

The terrorists are the ones who deserve the world's wrath, and are the ones responsible for the deaths that their actions cause, not those who are fighting them. We are making the world safer by standing against them. If they aren't withstood tooth and nail, the world will only become more unsafe as they spread their tyranny and violence without restraint.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


81 posted 10-11-2004 01:08 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Raph, you still insist on saying that the President presented Iraq as an imminent threat


We've discussed this before, I've given examples in other threads of administration members using the words 'imminent', when not using imminent the administration used words suggesting immenence. That you refuse to read or accept them makes these proofs no less valid.

quote:
Despite the liberal contention that Saddam had no connections with Al Qaida, that's just not the case. He may not have had any operational links with 9/11, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have links and didn't provide safe-haven to terorists.


It's not a liberal contention but an intelligence community fact. The point is Rumsfield and company told the american public there were links to 9/11 to help justify the war. That was a lie, however you choose to see it, it is a non-truth told to the american citizens in order to sway support for the war.

quote:
Saddam would not give a full accounting, and when all the intelligence agencies of the world, not just U.S. intelligence, said he still had them?


Which is why UN inspectors(regardless of what you'll say about them), should have been able to finish their job along with better intelligence and survellaince to find out the truths we know know. You want to speak of US intelligence/links to Al Queda, how about Saudi Arabia Denise? Saudi Arabia.

quote:
And why should all of those atrocities in all those other countries have taken precedence? Who's call is that?


Certainly not the Bush administration's. That's why UN, NATO and other organizations were created. Yes, you can attack their members and their methods while ignoring methods of the current administrations.

quote:
Free elections in Afghanistan, I think Ali said for the first time in 500 years, and where even the women are allowed to vote, yes that is a big deal, a very big deal. And it's a big step in the right direction.


Yes I agree, but not now. How can they be fully free elections when parts of the country are still under Taliban threat. Don't innocent people in those parts of the country deserve the right to freedom and to vote? If US states were occupied and in the middle of bloody battles and uprisings, would you want or think it fair that US elections were going on in others?

quote:
But is tyranny better than messy? War is messy, but I think most people would agree that their freedom is worth it.


Freedom is a word. Oh it looks beautiful on paper I know, but don't think it means anything right to most Iraqis right now. You're applying western thought and our visions of freedom to another world. Better than messy? So, so easy to say when you're not in the middle of it. Messy comes with no guarantees, though both candidates will tell you otherwise, things could very well turn out worse. Many have learned to live and survive even under tyranny. You think the current upheaval of their lives or life in the aftermath of this war is easier? Even were there to be victory some form of stability it would be tenuous at best. The rise in insurgency and chance of a full scale civil war now and after occupation looms heavy.

quote:
The terrorists are the ones who deserve the world's wrath


EXACTLY, which is why Bush really dropped the ball focussing on Iraq rather than Al Queda, not securing Afghanistan first,ignoring Saudi Arabian cells, letting Iran further their nuclear weapons program, not focussing on serious talks and plans for Palestineans/Israel.

But we'll just leave it at a difference of opinion. You've made yours known with well thought out responses and your personal rationale. My arguments have been made in the hopes that you'd apply the latter to the current administration as well.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors