Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on October 07, 2004, 11:10:02 PM
-
Would the United States and the world be safer and better off with four more years of President Bush trying to introduce democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and, by potential extension, much of the tribal- or religion-governed Middle East?
or
Would the United States and the world be safer and better off with four years of President Kerry as the symbol of America's freedom to change its own elected leaders and try new approaches to solving U.S. and world problems?
If the election were tomorrow, would you vote W or K?
-
Dubya
-
When this election is over, sometime in March we will not be a shining example to anyone as to what Democracy is about .
-
At the risk of being wiped out for being off topic... isn't this the third or fourth time someone has asked this question?
-
Originally posted by Halo
Would the United States and the world be safer and better off with four years of President Kerry as the symbol of America's freedom to change its own elected leaders and try new approaches to solving U.S. and world problems?
The world needs a symbol of America's freedom to elect/change a President, only if it's Kerry?
yeah, we will be "safer" if we elect Kerry, thus proving to the world we are willing to change leaders....which we do AT LEAST every 8 years regardless.
LOL! Amazing ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
When this election is over, sometime in March we will not be a shining example to anyone as to what Democracy is about .
With our typical voter turnout, I agree.
-
The argument that "If Bush gets defeated, the terrorists win" is such crap.
If anything... Bush getting ousted only sends a LOUDER signal that democracy is real, is true, and that not only do Americans speak the language, they act by it. They live by it. Terrorists be damned.
If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.
-
The only thing is With either member. Nothing is gonna change in Iraq.
For the moment. for better or for worse we're stuck there
Im making two predictions right now.
reguardless of who wins. during the next term
A- the economy will be better
B-we will still be in Iraq
-
Originally posted by Nash
The argument that "If Bush gets defeated, the terrorists win" is such crap.
If anything... Bush getting ousted only sends a LOUDER signal that democracy is real, is true, and that not only do Americans speak the language, they act by it. They live by it. Terrorists be damned.
If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.
Good point, I wonder if it could go the other way though, like Spain, we fear them and want a leader that will back down to there tactics.
A case could be made both ways but as Sandy says they are Neanderthals and really don't care who is in the WH. They didn’t leave us alone under WJK and he pulled out (so to speak).
No I don't think they care one way or the other, next time OBL does an interview we should ask him.
-
The Lesser of Two Evils!
If I could vote, and had to vote tomorrow..
I'd go Kerry...
I mean, how much more can he mess it up?
Hell who knows he might do some good, and then the four years after that, we'll have a fresh Republican Canidate, which depending on how Kerry does, will win by a landslide or it'll be a Gore/Bush thing all over again..
-
Kerry/Edawards. Why? Current administration has a weak domestic agenda.
-
I tried to phrase the questions as neutrally as possible. This is the way I've been hearing the main dilemma of many voters.
I haven't seen the alternatives put quite like this in other threads.
Wouldn't be surprised if something like this is the last thought many people have as they pull the lever or push the button or punch the chad.
Maybe it will be further boiled down to:
Who best to keep us safe the next four years?
-
Originally posted by Nash
If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.
I ain't even gonna touch that one. :)
-
And if you think Im just ignoring Iraq, here are my thoughts on that. I was with Bush at the start. How do I feel now about Iraq now? Iraq already has the component that is required for victory and that is its own army building up. When Iraqs own Army is able to defend its own country from internal insurgency and perhaps external forces, then I think its safe to say that victory in Iraq will have been achieved. Perhaps just internal and the US should guard its broders for a while to ensure foreign insurgences dont get through. Its just a matter of time and no guerilla insurgency can survive without resupply of materials and men. Men get old and can no longer fight and ammunition runs out. The areas along its east and western borders should be closely guarded like a DMZ.
So while thats happening, what about our own internal issues? Why does Bush have to have such a weak internal agenda?
-
The first example gave specific ... Democracy spreading to the Middle East and other countries. If this happens then it will make the world safer in the long term, getting there will not be easy or get done in four years or even be safer during that time but if accomplished this choice wins.
The second example only gives the world a symbol and this in of itself will change nothing to make the world safer by itself. What the Kerry administration does would of course remain to be seen.
-
I aint even gonna touch that one. - Funked
Oh like... the rest of us aren't making tulips of ourselves?
You running for school Omnibudsman?
(Funked: "thars something damning I want to say, but by just suggesting that there is a damning thing, my job is done".)
Jump in, the waters fine.
-
And a free Iraq is no guarantee that its neighbors will take notice and say, hey we want to be free also. Just look at NK/SK and other examples where freedom is a neighbor and the other doesnt care.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
And a free Iraq is no guarantee that its neighbors will take notice and say, hey we want to be free also. Just look at NK/SK and other examples where freedom is a neighbor and the other doesnt care.
Yea and lets not bring up the former Soviet states, no that wouldn’t be good. And we need to stay away from South America right as that would also blow your theory.
After all we know the people in NK would never want to live like SK if given a choice right?
I don't think your choice of the words "doesent care" may not be the best.
-
Even if you give then Brittiney Spears and MTV, their Ayatola may not let them have it. They want 60 virgin Brittney Spears.
;)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Even if you give then Brittiney Spears and MTV, their Ayatola may not let them have it. They want 60 virgin Brittney Spears.
;)
Which just goes to show that they're freaking nuts.
Virgins aren't worth the effort. ;)
-
Our election tommorrow is all about economics....the liberals seem to have a get out of jail free card when it comes to iraq..
Tronsky
-
If Iraqs army goes into full effect, Bush will have that. That he freed a country that didnt want to be free, didnt ask to be free, danced on the streets when the wtc went down. He will have that success that he ignored our domestic issues and freed Iraq. I want to support him, I tried but I cant. Im Sorry. I see Kerry as a better president.
-
Sorry guys but I just dont see this great domestic weakness your all talking about.
Makes for great Dem Rhetoric. But thats about it.
-
I saw Bush on Leno tonight. He promised flu shots and a new car to everyone that votes for him. :aok :aok
-
First off, as many leaders of what they themselves refer to as organizations to throw off the yoke of american imperialism, and what the rest of us call terrorist organizations, say, W has been great for recruitment.
Their cause for war is the claim that the United States and Israel seek to wipe out Islam and steal the natural resources with which the Middle East is cursed.
No US president has come anywhere near W in terms of making this claim seem valid, both in its religious and economic parts.
you can argue that W.'s invasion of Iraq was not guided by Christian apocalypticism or corporate greed, and you may be right, but that's not how it's being perceived.
So, whatever else you might say, W. is better at encouraging terrorist groups to recruit and to organize against the US.
Personally, I don't see kicking his dumb bellybutton out of office as "backing down" or "giving in" to the wishes of terrorists. Frankly, Al-Q and the rest want someone like Bush in power. It makes their extremist position seem not so extreme.
And if you've got a quarrel with a neighbor who's convinced you want to damage his property, you don't apologize for something you don't want and don't desire to do, but you don't let your kids throw rocks through his windows either. It's not "backing down" to tell that kid to stop and lock him in the basement for crimes against humanity. There's a right way and a wrong way to solve problems, after all.
-
I fundamentally disagree with you Dinger. I think it is the anti-Bush and anti-America sentiment being widely expressed that is encouraging to the terrorists and not the attempt to deal with them.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
There's a right way and a wrong way to solve problems, after all.
Hell yeah... Amen... damned straight.
-
I love the internet. Just type in a few keywords, and you find a news article that supports your opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82790,00.html
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I fundamentally disagree with you Dinger. I think it is the anti-Bush and anti-America sentiment being widely expressed that is encouraging to the terrorists and not the attempt to deal with them.
Agreed, And I'd even go so far to say it is moreso the Anti american sentiment the even the anti Bush.
After all the Anti American sentiment is alot older
-
But what IS the right way?
Did sitting back doing nothing help us? NO
Is invading other countries going to help? To early to tell.
I look at it this way....we have a course of action that COULD make things better for us and I'm willing to give it 4 more years.
Kerry hasn't shown me anything other than he will do the same(maybe) while kissing other countries asses.
-
I think you are making too much out of it. I think most voters are voting on single issues that affect them personaly... if you are a teacher you would fear vochers say, and vote for someone like kerrie who you could trust to be in your poicket.
If you were a gun owner and believed in the second amendment, you would want to have someone like Bush who is in the pocket of the NRA.
If you are a liberal you would want kerrie and more taxes and socialism
If you are a conservative you would want Bush and less taxes and less government programs.
lazs
-
I'm tired of hearing Bush called a divider or polarizer. Clinton pissed many of us off to the extreme and yes caused some visible division, even drove the wedge that is still dividing us. However, it wasn't to the extreme that seems apparent today. This isn't Bush's fault though. The difference is that many of us conservatives weren't the loud mouth have-it-my-way-at-all-costs blow hards making all the racket today. Of course you are free to disagree.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I aint even gonna touch that one. - Funked
Oh like... the rest of us aren't making tulips of ourselves?
You running for school Omnibudsman?
(Funked: "thars something damning I want to say, but by just suggesting that there is a damning thing, my job is done".)
Jump in, the waters fine.
I thought the "if" part was pretty funny.
It's just that you are under such a big dogpile that I thought I'd just do a drive-by instead of jumping on the pile.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
First off, as many leaders of what they themselves refer to as organizations to throw off the yoke of american imperialism, and what the rest of us call terrorist organizations, say, W has been great for recruitment.
Their cause for war is the claim that the United States and Israel seek to wipe out Islam and steal the natural resources with which the Middle East is cursed.
No US president has come anywhere near W in terms of making this claim seem valid, both in its religious and economic parts.
you can argue that W.'s invasion of Iraq was not guided by Christian apocalypticism or corporate greed, and you may be right, but that's not how it's being perceived.
So, whatever else you might say, W. is better at encouraging terrorist groups to recruit and to organize against the US.
Personally, I don't see kicking his dumb bellybutton out of office as "backing down" or "giving in" to the wishes of terrorists. Frankly, Al-Q and the rest want someone like Bush in power. It makes their extremist position seem not so extreme.
And if you've got a quarrel with a neighbor who's convinced you want to damage his property, you don't apologize for something you don't want and don't desire to do, but you don't let your kids throw rocks through his windows either. It's not "backing down" to tell that kid to stop and lock him in the basement for crimes against humanity. There's a right way and a wrong way to solve problems, after all.
please explain to me clinton and the escalation of terrorism attacks against the us? clinton was everyones buddy and sensitive to all. you lack fundamental understanding about how things work in the more barbaric parts of the world. "anything but a hard target is-a target". this is a reality in the middle east and other places that ill bet you have never been to. you are very reasonable i think. most of the people that are a threat to western culture are not.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I thought the "if" part was pretty funny.
It's just that you are under such a big dogpile that I thought I'd just do a drive-by instead of jumping on the pile.
hehehe
-
if i could vote, and if i could vote in america, id drop a match into the ballot box, thus rendering the entire election invalid, causing both major parties to self destruct in a massive witch hunt.
-
I think it would be pretty hard to judge the election by what the latest things each candidate has said.
Kerry has changed it so many times that we don't know to what or when he will change it again.
However, as of right now, Kerry is saying the exact same thing Bush is.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
That he freed a country that didnt want to be free, didnt ask to be free
thats about the stupidest thing i have ever heard, "people don't want to be free", speak for yourself, you must be a poli-sci major at Berkley.
people risk their lives to be free, and some even die trying to be free.
you are a poor misguided fool, get out of my country.
-
B.
Simply put because if K. becomes said symbol, he'll be just that a symbol.
Symbols do not break dictatorships, do not break extremist regimes, does not change economies (which in turn change societies at the sociological level).
The USA was a symbol of freedom for all oppressed peoples during the cold war. Nothing came out of being a symbol. it was economical and military issues that brought upon the fall of the berlin wall, the breakup of the USSR.
Symbols? they make students living in oppressive regimes stage up impressive demostrations where they ask for their rights as human beings.. then get rolled over by tanks and machine gunned. Tianamen (sp?) square ring a bell?
Want to SEE what REALLY works?
Take a look at the attempted coup in russia a couple years back. Russia had been under a free government and the ol' communist era leaders (including KGB) wanted to get control back... army tanks and troops sent by those men to remove the free gov. from power.
The Russian PEOPLE stopped it. Once the concept of freedom puts a step in the door people wont give it up. And this only happened because economic/military from the USA, not some stupid symbol, that broke the USSR's back.
and i need more coffee.