Nice response. Well thought out, not aggressive or self righteous. This is more like what I was looking for in this thread. Not this.
Davids, Excellent points. Does Bush even try to understand why there are so many people in the world against the United States? Do we really want United States to be like Isreal or northern Ireland where people are constantly living in fear? You can capture or kill Bin Ladin but that would not stop 10 new Ladins from attacking the United States. There are always root causes that needs to be looked at. If the middle east as a whole has the same living standard and education as the united states do you believe so many young men would sacrafice their lives for stupid holy war? But the US policy in the past and currently has always been to support any dictator as long as it our dictator and never truely think about the people of other countries. Kerry might continue this police but I feel he would at least be a more moderate and less egocentric leader. Mark
First off; I hope you didn't take my initial post as aggressive or self righteous? That's not what I was intending; rather, I was giving my emotional thoughts on the situation as you were requesting. I apologize if that came off differently. Anyhow, to be fair, we are in unchartered waters. That is definitely true; having an attack of that magnitude on our shores is certainly not an everyday threat. But I suppose the greatest difference between your view and mine is I don't really believe we're doing anything meaningful anymore. I haven't formed my own opinion for the sake of this race; it started forming on the subject on 9-11. I have to ask you this; what exactly do you think has changed, other than we're all more afraid now? There isn't some sudden 'challenge to our way of life' that took shape the day 9-11 happened. It has always been there. Terrorists hated us before, and they still do. They just finally got the resources together to actually do something. It sure as heck doesn't mean they weren't trying before and they aren't trying now. And to be honest, a part of that was our lack of security and caution that allowed it to happen. When a group of terrorists who are already on our 'watch list' can organize something like that on our own shores, that's a problem. The thing is...what has the current Administration done about it, other than give us little 'terror warnings' and spout rhetoric? Do you think what we're doing now - stretching our military thin in Iraq - is actually making strides in helping us? For a brief time, after 9-11, we were chasing down those that attacked us and had much of the world at our side in doing so. At the time, I didn't call for a widespread nuclear bombing of Afghanistan as some were - mainly because there was no point to something like that. I wanted real goals and a real target; I wanted to show strength and reasoning and efficiency. I wanted a message that we are capable of what the most advanced country in the world should be capable of doing. Briefly, we did that. But what are we doing now? We can't even get real solid information to us about weapons, or terrorist links, or anything that happened on 9-11 and what we're responding to now. All we're left with is bickering and debating and aruging and division. And fear. I'm not saying you're buying into propaganda; just the fear and insecurity. Because to say propaganda means that someone is feeding it to you, and I'm not ready to make a charge like that; There is a chance that the current Administration is only doing what it believes is right. But it is aimless. We are no more safe now that we were. We have more enemies in the world. Our military is all over the place. The ones that actually attacked us still exist. We've spent the last year on a war that we can't even get solid information that has actually helped to solve those concerns. You have not bought into a false sense of insecurity; because there is an insecurity that exists. That's the point. We had a chance to actually do something. To get the world behind us and hunt down actual goals; make actual strikes against something with meaning. Not some broad stroke 'War on Terror' that is incredibly unrealistic to attain. Not some seperate war that began when we didn't even finish the first job we tried to do. We had a chance to actually make some sort of stand against terrorism. Then we blew it.
Just to add to this, I will try a little pre-emptive message for this. The line of thinking here does not mean that we should negotiate and try and reason or offer sympathy to the terrorists. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use the military to take out terrorists. But if we are looking at conditions that recruitment for Al-Qaeda possible, and we use our military to go after them, then we have a more comprehensive and effective strategy. If we change nothing we do but only use the military then it won't ever stop.
The election is a "nuisance" to Bush, huh Chance? Sad, that little things like our constitutionally mandated electoral process might impede Bush's vague "war on terror." Bush is a leader huh? He's not beholden to ANY special interests, right Chance? Not Clear Channel? Not Halliburton? Not the Religious Right? Yeah, it's only the Democrats that are "conduits..." Bush SURE displayed leadership as he sat in that school room for 7 minutes, looking scared ****less & lost, as the country was attacked. He sure had our best interests in mind when his administration outed an undercover CIA operative right? How about when his administrations release of secret info -to score political points- caused an al-Qaeda sting op to fall apart a couple of days ago? I don't know that out of a nation of 300 million that Kerry of all people is the best bet to lead us, but I do know that Bush and his supporters act as if the guy DESERVES to be President again - without any questioning. That's f-ing ridiculous. He has done NOTHING to gain ANYONE's unflinching loyalty or unquestioned vote to lead this country. Kerry won't get my vote automatically. Hell, maybe Kerry is NOT the best candidate to take over the country for 4 years, but does Bush DESERVE to stay on? Don't go with "feelings" - look at this critically! If ANY of you go into the voting booth this November without having done a clear - objective, critical, QUESTIONING, suspicious, not-taking-anything-for-granted look at EITHER party's candidate then you are a simpleton and an idiot. You shouldn't be able to hold down more than a minimum wage job, much less help decide the fate of the most powerful nation in the history of this planet. The fact that some people will base their vote on gut feelings like this, without looking at a candidates track record, policies, personal history, etc makes me sick & scares the living **** out of me.
Without reading through all the bull****, I'll just say that I will not vote for Bush for 2 reasons: 1. I will not vote for ANYONE out of fear. It is not in my nature to vote on something because I fear what MIGHT happen. This isn't to say I don't want security, but the truth is that I trust the people on the ground - police, firefighters, agents, military men & women - to do the protecting more than those in charge. 2. Because I won't vote out of fear, there is no other reason for me to vote for GWB. I'm pro-choice. I'm stronly supportive of environmental causes and renewable energy. I am strongly in favor of social welfare for supporting those less fortunate. I am NOT in favor of providing tax breaks to wealthy individuals or corporations. I want our country to have excellent relationships and partnerships with other countries around the world because we are become more and more a global - rather than national - economy and society. As a result, I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum philosophically from GWB and I could not in good conscience vote for him. End of story for me.
Sadly Bush has turned what should been a campaign against a few thousand Al Qaeda members into a war against a billion Muslims, a war that is against what most of the non-Muslim world wants. This is a reason to be afraid. Action is needed to withdraw from this path. Now I realize that occasionally Bush makes some sort of half-assed statement like the: "The Iraqis or the Muslims are a proud people", but this certainly isn't be effective.
Rokkit. Good Response. I guess I feel that we have made strides in defending ourselves. I "feel" safer, whatever that means. And as I have posted in other threads I would support attacks against all countries that foster militant Islam. That anger that everyone felt shortly after 9/11 I guess I am holding onto a little tighter. I still feel a sense of the ire when I see Iranians and Syrians and yes Saudis lauding when bad things happen to America and Americans. I do not believe we can solve this problem and eliminate this threat through diplomacy, nation building, aid, or anything save brute force. Man, as I type I feel like ya'll will think I am a pro war psycho and please understand this is not the case. I just do not believe that there is any way other than violence to rid the world of this element. It sucks but we cannot reason with them. We cannot work with them. There is no way. Again, thanks for illustrating your point. It was a good read and you brought up good and valid points. Rocket G...The war on terror is not vague. It is just grand. And yes, Bush is a leader. I cannot say this without slinging poo but could you maybe drop a few more hints that you really got into Fahrenhet 9-11? You are like a psycho religious nut with a bullhorn yelling out scripture to people. I'm a christian and I still think those people are doing moe harm than good. Stuff like this: Is priceless! That's exactly what I, and a lot of other people are doing. A lot of them are regular posters here on this board that support Kerry. They are thinking. I am thinking. You are recycling. I guess you don't get that there are people out there and in here that are doing that and have drawn different conclusions. That's healthy dissent. That is respectful debate where both sides learn a little something. Your post is neither. It's "I'm right, you're wrong, my daddy can kick your daddy's ass." Grade school Bullsh!t.
Chance: I respect your opinion on this, but I not only disagree, I believe the exact opposite. I don't think you are a pro war psycho. I just think that, like many others, you have strong feelings on the issue and, as you said, you are holding onto your anger maybe a little more tightly than others and that's fine. The one thing I would say is that there are plenty of Americans who take great pleasure in the suffering and death of those who they think are responsible for their pain. The witch hunt was, after all, a part of American history. So, I don't think that we can look at radical, fundamentalist Islamic people who cheer our pain and suffering as all that different from anyone in America who would support the suffering and death of others if they felt it improved upon the American way of life and made us safer. Many militant extremists believe that through the suffering and death of Americans, they are bringing about the change required to make the world a better place. I think we sometimes have more in common than we would like to admit.
What am I recycling? Did you miss the parts in my post where I questioned whether Kerry is fit to lead us? You liken my post to a "psycho religious rant" yet you bring up the completely irrelevant fact that you are a Christian. You also overlook the fact that your candidate of choice is a right wing religious zealot. Your F9/11 snipe is moronic and is something that many conservatives fling out when confronted with ANY info critical of Bush. In fact, I have NOT even seen F9/11, nor do I plan to. I do not like Michael Moore - he has to be the most unobjective filmmaker/"investigator" I've ever seen. Christopher Guest's "mockumentaries" have more substance to them than any pablum Moore pumps out. I posted this: "If ANY of you go into the voting booth this November without having done a clear - objective, critical, QUESTIONING, suspicious, not-taking-anything-for-granted look at EITHER party's candidate then you are a simpleton and an idiot. You shouldn't be able to hold down more than a minimum wage job, much less help decide the fate of the most powerful nation in the history of this planet." ...in the vague hope that people will look at both sides of the issue. Something you say you are doing. Yet, again, you ignore the fact that I questioned Kerry's presidential viability. You even say that my post is "grade school bull****" but then you post short-bus gems such as these: "Rocket G...The war on terror is not vague. It is just grand." WTF does that mean Chance? "Just grand?" WTF? This is a war against al-Qaeda & Islamic extremists - not "terror." You cannot fight a war against a notion. What the hell makes this "war" or the term "grand" as you say? You also state that Bush is "a leader." Well, yes he is in the pure sense of the word. As our elected president he is our "leader." But tell me, how is he leading us? If he is such a great leader, why is our country divided as almost never before? What are his leadership qualities beyond somehow alleviating your fear of dropped van equipment? As far as your smarmy little insults - I'll just say that I think you're much better at marketing than debating Chance. You ask people to post from "an emotional standpoint" yet act surprised when the thread descends into partisan bickering. Again, the very FACT that you think that "the economy, jobless numbers, Stem Cell Research, Kerry’s military record, Bush’s lies, tax cuts" are all "meaningless crap" scares the bejeezus out of me.
Again, this just freaks me out: "When I see you guys posting about the economy, jobless numbers, Stem Cell Research, Kerry’s military record, Bush’s lies, tax cuts, and other meaningless crap I just want to scream. In the new BIG PICTURE, that stuff is meaningless. Which of the two guys do you want delegating authority to run a war against an illusive (difficult to catch) enemy? Forget all the rest. That is the only issue at stake. If and when we get attacked again who do you want up there?" ...and it's not just you Chance. There are many who will vote based solely on how either candidate feels about abortion. Or job outsourcing. Or logging. That's just sick. None of these - including who we want as president in case we get attacked, is "the only issue." This is not a black & white world. This is not a simple world. There are many issues & there are sub-issues to those issues. If you cannot grasp this or even be bothered to worry about this, it says a lot about the direction our country is headed in...
I'm back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Greenville, SC Falcons camp has kept me very, very, very busy. I'm going to vote for Bush because: 1. He will be enacting a REAL social security reform and a total overhaul of the bloated tax structure. 2. He is the only man still in the election who is qualified to be C in C. Kerry is too "nuanced" (AKA wishy-washy) and has simply stated that he'd do it "better" and yet has not offered any substantive proposals different from the President's. Besides, Kerry is: 1. A tax increaser 2. pro-choice 3. soft on defense 4. too reliant on a dated and chaotic international system to keep world peace. 6. will appoint far-left judges. 7. very indecisive and too calculating.
welcome back, we missed these gems from you how someone is indecisive and calculating at the same time is beyond me
