Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Scrat wrote:

I would submit that if Bush and Co. were really just blood-thirsty thugs they would act as you suggest, and the fact that they have not indicates that they do in fact prefer to limit the use of combat and the deaths involved in changing the face of the world for the better.

And perhaps they simply realize that they could never get away with measures much beyond what they have already perpetrated.

Perhaps they are just thinking of a way to gradually work their way up to more intensive killing.

I wouldn't put anything past this group -- and I don't trust them as far as I can throw my car.

I can see you are solidly in their camp, Scrat -- despite some protestations you make to the contrary. Insofar as that is the case, and with as much respect as possible, I think you are doing a GREAT disservice to your country and to humanity.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Scrat I think we're going to have to define peacenik here for the sake of the discussion. I believe desiring peace is an admirable trait.

That doesn't mean I don't think peaceniks ever have to go to war. It means I don't think peaceniks are so damn gung ho for it and I don't believe war defines decent people.

bush inc. are not, IMO decent people, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will change my mind.

I'm with BPB on this... I'm a peacenik who'd blast you off the planet if you messed with me, but one who sincerely desires peace. I'm sorry it has bad connotations for you, Phoenix.

0 Replies

Quote:

That doesn't mean I don't think peaceniks ever have to go to war. It means I don't think peaceniks are so damn gung ho for it and I don't believe war defines decent people.

Piffka- I would have to agree with your "take" on the word peacenik. Problem is, I just can't seem to get past the fact that our soldiers in Vietnam were there against their will, and were reviled, instead of honored, when they returned home, many physically and emotionally ruined. I can't get past the Jane Fonda "thing", where service people were tortured, all in the name of "peace"!

I agree with your definition, but the WORD "peacenik" holds too much negative baggage for me, and I instinctively rail when I see it.

0 Replies

Well, Phoenix, though I'm a peacenik, I'm also an USAF brat, wife of a vet who volunteered for Viet Nam and now... supportive mom of a ROTC. We have continual discussions about the role of the military in this armed camp and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can wrap their flag tighter around themselves than I can. The military wants peace more than anybody and they'll fight to keep it that way. Jane Fonda is old news. We have a good life and we want to keep it that way.

Mr.P says that George W. looks in his toolbox and only sees his hammer. It's so big and shiny, he just wants to keep using it.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I thought we were discussing this in a pretty civilized fashion......do you think you're being a little too sensitive?

I don't think I'd say "sensitive". I've just noticed that when someone uses a colloquial, or slang, term in a discussion... it opens doors for misunderstandings and accusations, as it did for some a few posts back.

This is all very good info that is being brought to the table, though.

What I don't like about Bush:
** Bringing religion into his politics... getting rid of a few scientists to replace them with scientists who state religiously bias views. I just don't think you should mix religion and science. My brother likes to say, "Its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion," and I just hate that. Science is important and shouldn't be stifled because of someone's religious beliefs.

** The homeland security idea. Too much like Big Brother.

** The fact that soldiers are still in Iraq. It was important to get Saddam out, but he's out now, and we should be, too.

What I don't like about Kerry:
** I'm not in favor of socialist programs, which is a big part of the democrats' ideas.

** I have no idea where he stands on issues, he doesn't seem to want to commit.

** He has made some pretty serious statements, and is unwilling to back them up. Too suspicious for me.

In my humble opinion, the terrorism threat is being blown way out of proportion. So many people die every day from natural causes, but the news media doesn't mention that... they just want ratings, so they talk constantly about terrorism. You'd think it happened ten times more often than it does. I also think that if Kerry wins, that's a possible 8 more years without the chance of Hillary Clinton running for president, as opposed to 4 more years if Bush is elected. I'm most likely going to vote libertarian, because I'm not able to see much of a silver lining in the two washed out parties that we've seen time and time again.

0 Replies

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

It was important to get Saddam out...

No it wasn't. We had our hands full in Afghanistan. The ones who wanted Saddam out most ofall were the Saudis, our so-called "friends" in the mideast.

I like that Kerry says it is time to engage them, towit:

Quote:

Saudi Arabia has long been a major supporter and financer of Islamic extremism at home and abroad, including in some cases financial support for terrorist organizations. Recently the Saudi government has declared that it is cracking down on terrorist financing and support for extremism, but its actions do not yet match its rhetoric. Today, John Kerry called for accountability. The US must do everything possible to ensure that Saudi reforms are real, not just window-dressing. He pointed to three major concerns: hate speech in Saudi textbooks and sermons, support for Hamas, and the anti-Semitic, 9/11 conspiracy theory of the Saudi Minister of Interior, Prince Nayef. Unfortunately, he said, we have too little leverage right now because of our nation's deep energy and financial ties to the country. To alter the balance, John Kerry will reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage to these interests. The Bush Administration has all but gone the other way. He will also consider other actions, including financial sanctions to nations that harbor terrorists.

0 Replies

Piffka, there is a lot of support for terrorists in the middle east, and Saddam was a huge part of that. He helped collaborate many small terrorist organizations. How can you ignore that.

The middle east is a mess, their governments hate each other, their governments all seem to hate us. Where do you draw the line?

That better? I edited it for ya:)

0 Replies

LRRH, They do not all hate us. I know several Muslims, and they are my friends. Two live in Egypt, one in Iran, and another in Tanzania.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

LRRH, They do not all hate us. I know several Muslims, and they are my friends. Two live in Egypt, one in Iran, and another in Tanzania.

LRRH didn't write that Muslims hate us, he wrote that Middle East governments do. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
LRRH, They do not all hate us. I know several Muslims, and they are my friends. Two live in Egypt, one in Iran, and another in Tanzania.

LRRH didn't write that Muslims hate us, he wrote that Middle East governments do.

I had to edit that, since I didn't specify initially. I didn't think anyone would assume I meant the citizens.

0 Replies

Ah, I didn't notice that you'd edited it. Then I'll assume the CI's inference was reasonable given the text as it existed when he read it.

0 Replies

LRRHood -- Saddam was undoubtedly a bad man but we lost sight of our goal which was to bring the perps of 9/11 to justice. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 as most everybody will tell you. He was also secular so why, oh why, would we think that he and the ultra-religious faction of al-Qaeda would be bed-fellows?

A bait-and-switch, imho, and one probably driven partly to please the Saudis and partly to show our unquestionable power.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

LRRHood -- Saddam was undoubtedly a bad man but we lost sight of our goal which was to bring the perps of 9/11 to justice.

No, that was not our goal. That is a part of our goal. Our goal is to either bring an end to global terrorism or at least make the world a very inhospitable place for it. Toward that end, ridding Iraq of Saddam and helping create a stable, free society there is a step towards the long-term goal of stabilizing the Middle East and ending it's role as the primary incubator for world terror. You may disagree with the choice to go to war in Iraq, but arguing that doing so has nothing to do with the war against terror just shows a lack of understanding of the full scope of the war on terror.

0 Replies

"Bring an end to global terrorism," Scrat?

I'd just like peace in our time, but let's try to do one thing at a time and do each thing well.

I did and I do disagree with a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Iraq and I think it has been a disaster. We've spread ourselves too thin and that is not a good strategy.

0 Replies

Piffka- I like Kerry's words about Saudi Arabia. I have always felt that they were probably one of the worst troublemakers, and incubators of terrorism. I think that GWB played patty cake with the Saudis, because of the entire oil scenario.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Piffka wrote:
LRRHood -- Saddam was undoubtedly a bad man but we lost sight of our goal which was to bring the perps of 9/11 to justice.

No, that was not our goal. That is a part of our goal. Our goal is to either bring an end to global terrorism or at least make the world a very inhospitable place for it. Toward that end, ridding Iraq of Saddam and helping create a stable, free society there is a step towards the long-term goal of stabilizing the Middle East and ending it's role as the primary incubator for world terror. You may disagree with the choice to go to war in Iraq, but arguing that doing so has nothing to do with the war against terror just shows a lack of understanding of the full scope of the war on terror.

They have been making up the "full scope" as they go...in the beginning it WAS about bringing the 9/11 perps to justice and then kept expanding. Unfortunately in true bush inc ADD fashion they keep expanding the war before they finish one battle. That's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Eventually comes a big due bill.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Piffka- I like Kerry's words about Saudi Arabia. I have always felt that they were probably one of the worst troublemakers, and incubators of terrorism. I think that GWB played patty cake with the Saudis, because of the entire oil scenario.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

I did and I do disagree with a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Iraq...

Then I assume you have no complaint with the multilateral coalition that exercised their right under international law and existing UN resolutions to resume hostilities which were halted under a cease-fire the requirements of which Saddam not only failed to fulfill but at which he thumbed his bulbous nose. (In case you lacked all the facts, that is what actually occurred, not your "unilateral preemptive attack".)

0 Replies

"unilateral " is moot
"preemptive attack" in not

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

"unilateral " is moot
"preemptive attack" in not

Fine, then tell me how resuming hostilities after a cease-fire has been broken can be termed "preemptive".

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know