Topic awaiting preservation: Presidential Debate 2 (Page 1 of 1)

Merely opening a thread for discussion - it was bound to occur.
Although it's only aired for about two minutes, I feel as though I'm regaining intelligence lost watching Kerry and Bush spout bullshit.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

QUOTATION: "Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

Xpirex: IMHO, you should start a thread dedicated to that image and let this one for chit chat about the Presidential Debate 2

Well, I thought Bush did better than the first debate. However, his performance as far as I'm concerned was pathetic. I cringe whenever he speaks because he does such a piss-poor job of representing the ideals of the party. But I'm stuck with him as the head and that's just the way it goes.

I think Kerry came across very polished and he carried himself well. My problem with him is not how he says things, it's what he says. As far as content is concerned I have serious concerns about where he would lead the country if elected.

One thing that really bothered me about Kerry in this last debate was the way he answered the abortion question. I thought it was about as patronizing an answer as I've heard a politician utter in a long time. How he can still call himself a Catholic is a *complete* mystery to me. He must have absolutely no shame whatsoever.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

How he can still call himself a Catholic is a *complete* mystery to me. He must have absolutely no shame whatsoever.

---

He is trying to please both sides with his careful answer. Instead he shows shallowness and no integrity. How can you separate your spiritual beliefs from you personal politics? As soon as you open your mouth you show who you really are?

How many soldiers have given their lives in the Iraq war for a safer free Iraq? They did not die in vain. Is it over 1000 soldiers who promised to serve their country till death for America free of terrorism? Since the beginnings of America many have fallen in the name of freedom. If you add up all the men who have died in wars or conflicts from the 1st, 2nd, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq and American revolution it still wouldn?t equal to the number of babies killed in abortions which equals to around 45,000,000.00 since Roe vs Wade and counting. One million babies will be murdered this year. Talking about irony. And what a hypocrite. Why can?t Kerry be concerned for the babies murdered like he is concerned for the men who take an oath who die for their country, who at least are able to choose.

I'm genuninely confused by the President's performance in these first two debates. Regardless of how poor of a public speaker he is, Pres. Bush hasn't demonstrated that he has even slight knowledge of his own administration. Every question is met with an uncomfortable response where either nothing is said, or its just a put down toward the Senator.

Pres. Bush has never been someone capable of speaking off script but isn't he preparing for these debates? The format should be very agreeable to him. Take the first debate for example. The setup ensured that most (if not all) questions would concern Iraq or Afghanastan. Yet, he seemed not to know anything about either country or the US's policy toward those countries. Instead, he used his time to make fishy faces at the camera.

The second debate wasn't much better. While there was no fishy faces he didn't demonstrate any real understanding of his own policy. I think the only thing more confusing then his performance are the people who insist Pres. Bush either won or is doing a good job in the debates. These debates are going to win Kerry the election in November.

It is not so much "seperating [one's] spiritual beliefs from [one's] personal politics", but of seperating one's spiritual beliefs from what one will impose upon others.

And I'm thanking whatever god that exists that there are people in the world who can do that. If it were not so, we'd be in constant religious war.

While I don't believe in the integrity of the Roman Catholic church you so dearly love, I absolutely and steadfastly defend your right to practice your religion, go to your mass, say your confessions and take your communion.

And, I say here in public, if ever someone came into power who tried to deny you that right, saying he "couldn't seperate his spiritual beliefs (against the heathen RC church) from his politics", I'd be the very first person standing in Houston, Texas, ready to help you get to whatever church you wanted. I'd come armed, ready to kill and die to defend that right of yours.

That's how one seperates one's spiritual beliefs from one's politics.

[Hey Bugs, good to see you again.]

^ good answer Mobrul. you always seem to be able to word what I'm thinking better than I can.

quote:

---

My problem with him is not how he says things, it's what he says. As far as content is concerned I have serious concerns about where he would lead the country if elected.

---

Amen to that. BTW, good to see you Bugs.

quote:

---

One thing that really bothered me about Kerry in this last debate was the way he answered the abortion question. I thought it was about as patronizing an answer as I've heard a politician utter in a long time. How he can still call himself a Catholic is a *complete* mystery to me. He must have absolutely no shame whatsoever.

---

Thing is, if you go back and listen carefully, he never did answer the original question.

Ramasax
I have a plan! I have a plan! I have a plan!

"I have a plan! I have a plan! I have a plan!"
The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN! The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN! The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN!
sorry I couldn't resist

Those who haven't yet seen the debate can read the transcript on the site of The Commission on Presidential Debates. Which I'll do real soon.

quote:

---

Thing is, if you go back and listen carefully, he never did answer the original question.

---

Unlike his ever so forthcoming and straightforward opponent....?

It's honestly funny to even bring such a thing up as Kerry not directly answering a question.

I'll take "maybe better" over "obviously and proved bad" any day.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

DL, I don't think anyone was saying Bush doesn't dodge questions too.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bug - I realize that. It just comes across very amusing to me that it's being pointed out about kerry as if this is something new.....or as if Bush not only dodges questions, but has spent his entire career doing so...more than the average politician even...
Perhaps it's the wording, perhaps I'm reading it different than intended, but the statement came across as preposterously funny.

~shrug~

...and he did answer the question.
It wasn't what the woman wanted to hear, but he did.
The question was something like "how would you tell someone that government money wouldn't be used to fund abortions?"

[my rough paraphrase, from memory]
He said that he doesn't think abortions are right...he's a catholic...but he seperates what is an article of faith for him from public policy...and poor people have just as much right to abortion as rich people do.
[/my rough paraphrase, from memory]

She wanted him to say, "no gov't funds would be used for abortions" and he said that isn't his policy. He answered the question just fine, in the only way he could.
You can disagree with his policy, but he did answer the question.

I've uploaded a more legible version of the transcript of the Presidential Debate II. Of course I haven't touched the content.

quote:

---

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins.

---

Here, did he neglect to tell us when he thinks life begins?. Is it according to what his Catholic faith dictates or US Supreme Court rules? If he is really a practicing Catholic, then he would have to believe his faith is more important than his political convictions or his ambition for the highest office in the land. For the simple reason, that his Catholic Christian faith saves him eternally. Looks like somebody is selling out here. Like maybe selling his soul for the white house 8 yr stay.

quote:

---

I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

---

If the Catholic religion plays a hugh part of his life today, how come Catholics don't see it. I doubt the Catholic church is leading him today if he is against its teaching on moral law and in disagreement with the highest office in the supernatural spiritural world of Christianity in Pope John Paul II.

quote:

---

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

---

But his Catholic faith compels him to do just that. To go against the grain, like his brothers in faith, the 12 apostles even in times of adversity. No matter how unpopular he may be. He would have to do "Just what Jesus would do" How many times were Jesus and his followers driven out of town or stoned for evangelizing and even killed for. But Kerry cannot defend and speak for the unborn. If he did, he would be critized and scorned and even hated by his liberal friends and constituients. Especially Ted Kennedy,another sold out, misguided Catholic.

Its a disgrace to the Catholic faith, that Bush who is a Protestant, speaks and defends the unborn. Truly for practicing Catholics, Bush is doing the will of God in his stand on aboriton.

quote:

---

BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?
And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality

---

.

Partial birth abortion procedure is a horrendous was to kill a baby, by pulling the head out and sticking a sharp object in the babys head to kill it. Evil, Evil, Evil. I bet when the head Anti-Christ Satan sees this being perfomed, he is so elated that he probably parties with his co-horts of demons for weeks. Kerry is on record that he voted "No". I could see that he must be very confused blind in his faith and just doesn't get it or whats even worst, he does get it.

quote:

---

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

---

This ideological restriction is a moral precept in the Catholic church. Part of Catholic doctrine that cannot be changed EVER till the end of God's time. So is Kerry really a Catholic or can we label him either a "Catholic wannabe" or a "cafeteria catholic"

quote:

---

You'll help prevent AIDS.

---

I think this should not be blamed on the unborn. Why is Kerry pointing the finger at them? Shame on him.

quote:

---

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

---

Every child is wanted by God. Give to God what belongs to God. Give God back a life. Life is precious. Can't we agree on that?

quote:

---

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

---

How can getting or performing abortions make you do a better job morally speaking? Is it respectable to get an abortion?

(Edited by jade on 10-13-2004 19:47)

Fortunately for us all, this is not a 'catholic' nation. It is one built on freedom of religion which protects us from someone imposing law based on his religious beleifs.

Agree or not, that's the way ot works and will continue to work.

Politics is simply not the area to discuss what your religion compels you to do. It is an area to discuss what your repsonsibility as a representative of the people compels you to do.

We've had plenty of discussions on abortion, and this hardly seems the place to drag it all back out again...



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-13-2004 19:54)

Jade, what you advocate is, whether you realize or not, a policy *harmful* to Roman Catholics in the US. If, as you profess, all RC politicians must do exactly the will of the Pope in order to hold office in the States, you are calling for a theocracy.

You wish to destroy the Constitution.
You wish to destroy the Liberal traditions upon which this country was formed.
You wish to impose a Pope-led monarchy/theocracy.

This is largely the same argument the world had with JFK in the '60s. Many people in the US thought that if JFK - the first RC president of the US - was elected president, he'd become a puppet of Rome, stripping away US sovereignty and selling it out to the Pope. Thankfully (for Roman Catholics, Protestants, and everyone) he did not live up to those expectations. He led the nation as a civil servant to the Constitution and the citizens *as a whole*.

If you and the Roman Catholic Church insist that all RC politicians turn power over to Rome, you will set back RC equality decades. That is such a dangerous policy.
Once the Pope can rule the US, the door is open for ANY religion to rule the USA.

Would you want Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart imposing their version of a theocracy on you?
...or a Muslim cleric?
...or a Hindu?
...or a Jew?
Do you want to be forced (by law) to pray to Mecca?
...or forced by law to observe the Sabbath, in Hebrew, on Saturdays?
...and all non-Kosher food is illegal?
...or be forbidden from eating cows? They are sacred, after all. You'd be dishonoring the gods. I'd like to see that policy fly in Houston.

Do you see the danger of that precident?

No one is saying you can't practice Catholicism, and I've already stated I would fight, kill and die, if necessary, to protect that right of yours.
I'm simply saying that it is bad policy to have the Pope running the country.

I think Kerry answered the question that was asked. I just thought it was disgustingly patronizing.

I personally doubt very seriously that he deeply respects the belief about life and when it begins. His answer oozed with contempt for that woman's beliefs. But his answer was designed to make it sound like he was utterly pro-life in his personal beliefs which is somehow supposed to mitigate his utterly pro-choice public voting record. I would have respected his answer much more if he had just stated his position with a bit less political ooze and a bit more forth-rightness.

I didn't want to turn this into a debate on abortion, but that question stood out in my mind from the debate.



Another one that stood out for me was the one where Bush was asked:

quote:

---

GIBSON: The next question is for President Bush, and it comes from Nikki Washington.

WASHINGTON: Thank you.
Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation.

Diplomacy is obviously something that we really have to really work on.

What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?

BUSH: No, I appreciate that. I -- listen, I -- we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made.

I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security.

You know, I've made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.

And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do.

I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to a democracy and freedom, leadership that would be willing to reject terrorism.

I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.

I don't think we ought to join that. That was unpopular.

And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right.

We'll continue to reach out.

Listen, there is 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan.

People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing.

You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.

---

Did Bush answer the question? Sure, but not directly. He basically said that the president of the USA should make decisions that he believes are right and not decisions that are popular. When we first started talking about attacking Afghanistan and Iraq I remember making a similar statement and taking a lot of heat for it. But as difficult as it is to take a stand like that, I really do think it's the best way to proceed.

I think the key is that we are as right as we can possibly be on the decisions we make. If other countries don't like it, then we should do our best to explain why the decisions have merit as opposed to backing down just because they are unpopular. I think each of the examples Bush gave in his answer are very good ones.


Another question that stood out for me was the one at the end when Bush was asked to list mistakes he had made. Well, he didn't answer that one at all. But I can't imagine Bush nor Kerry actually listing three mistakes on national television like that. Perhaps someday when admitting mistakes is viewed more as a political plus but I sure can't see it this election. I thought that was a pretty funny question actually given the political realities. Perhaps the questioner was just hoping to see how the candidate squirmed when hearing it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-13-2004 20:43)

Is it necessary to remind that a nation is plural and not all its citizen share the same reglious beliefs. Religious people may believe strongly in the rightness of their beliefs, they remain nonetheless citizens of a bigger nation and as such there's no way they can impose spiritual laws to the whole nation. Doing otherwise would be the fact of an extremist and political trend of a religious community. Believers should love and respect the non-believers and their beliefs ( or lack of ).

quote:

---

quote:

---

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

---

Every child is wanted by God. Give to God what belongs to God. Give God back a life. Life is precious. Can't we agree on that?

---

Leave to non-believers the right to claim if they wanted or not their pregnancy. If you disagree with them, you're free to let them know the ways to avoid aborption, but you can't refuse them their constitutional rights.

Of course aborption is sensitive topic and I don't want to fork this thread.

As a side note, a communication advisor said in an interview that : G.W.BUSH sees the world in term of "right" or "wrong", while J.F.KERRY sees more shades in the world. This assertion about the two main candidates seems rather accurate in regard to their replies.

Bugimus: Sure the examples given by G.W.Bush are good. But actually he said nothing about a plan to improve the US diplomacy. It'll be great if the US government took a bit of time to discuss and try to convince other countries of the rightness of their decisions.



(Edited by poi on 10-13-2004 20:54)

quote:

---

G.W.BUSH sees the world in term of "right" or "wrong", while J.F.KERRY sees more shades in the world. This assertion about the two main candidates seems rather accurate in regard to their replies.

---

EXACTLY. I believe this is *the* difference between the two candidates. I further believe this difference of viewing the world represents the key divide in this country's populace. Conservatives tend to view the world in terms of right and wrong while Liberals tend to view it in terms of legality.

quote:

---

But actually he said nothing about a plan to improve the US diplomacy. It'll be great if the US government took a bit of time to discuss and try to convince other countries of the rightness of their decisions.

---

I agree he didn't directly answer how he planned to improve the world's view of us. I believe he answered indirectly in that he does not plan to do anything differently than he has done.

In that regard, I would much prefer that he would do far more to persuade our allies that his course of action has merit. I don't think this should be understressed. I want to see him continue to lead the world as he sees fit while at the same time doing a better job of selling that course of action.

But the last thing I want is John Kerry coming in and leading the world by following. He as much has said this would be his approach when he talked about protecting our security as long as it was ok with the rest of the world. That statement should have ended with a period and not a qualification.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, you said something just there that illustrates another key difference between what I believe and what many neo-cons believe.

"I want to see him continue to lead the world as he sees fit ..."
and
"...the last thing I want is John Kerry coming in and leading the world..."
[my emphasis]

It is not the US President's job to "lead the world". It is his/her job to lead the Executive Branch of the US government. (note: See Article II of the US Constitution.)
There is, literally, a world of difference between those two jobs.

The world is not electing the President. To proclaim him or her the "leader" of "the world" is arrogant and completely flies in the face of the democracy we proclaim to hold so dear.

Bugimus: Aside from the lapsus mobrul picked out, I want to say that where you see "John Kerry coming in and leading the world by following.", I rather see John Kerry coming in and leading his country hand in hand with all its allies. That's a difference of interpretation but I see a certain wisdom and a strength were you seem to see a weakness and a lack of clarity.



(Edited by poi on 10-13-2004 22:52)

mobrul,

It pleases me to no end that we can make this point clear. I agree very much that this is a, and possibly the, key difference.

Without even commenting on whether the president should be the leader of the free world does not change the fact that he/she is. For me it is analogous to some basketball stars protesting publicly that they are not role models for young kids. They are regardless of whether they want to be.

I am a fan of what liberal used to mean a few decades ago. John F. Kennedy would be considered a right wing radical by today's standards yet he represented many of the things I still hold dear. He believed it was the United States' duty to lead the world to a better place for all peoples.

I know I've given these sort of circular logic replies to you before but there is what should be in a more ideal world and there is what is practically achieveable in a much less ideal world. We live in the latter and so ultimately we have to operate accordingly.

poi,

quote:

---

I rather see John Kerry coming in and leading his country hand in hand with all its allies. That's a difference of interpretation but I see a certain wisdom and a strength were you seem to see a weakness and a lack of clarity.

---

That's a beautiful sentiment and I honestly wish that was the way it could be done. In the current geopolitical climate and especially in light of what we now know about what our allies were doing in Iraq behind the UN mandates leaves me kind of skeptical that there is enough trust to take that sort of approach. The world as a general rule is a cruel and ugly place.

Also, your government has vowed not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances including a Kerry victory. That leaves me a little cold on the prospects of Kerry being able to work "hand in hand" with the allies that parted company with the US in the war in Iraq.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, as much as it warms my heart that you are back, mobrul did a good job, but did not complete it, so I will.

quote:

---

Without even commenting on whether the president should be the leader of the free world does not change the fact that he/she is.

---

This is simply not true.

The President of the United States is currently the most powerful person in the world. But the position is in no way, shape, or form, the Leader of the free world, not in the slightest sense. I think Mr. Bush has demonstrated that perfectly well. The world is not following him, and neither is the free world following him. Selected nations have joined a so-called "coalition of the willing". Or are you calling that the "free world"? Even then, I think Spain has demonstrated, that even that is not true.

Now, there can be no doubt, that the President wields real power. And that anyone getting on the wrong side of that, is in real trouble. And the opposite is also true. But that is not leadership. And Mr. Bush doesn't understand the difference. There are ways to be strong, confident, and to persuade others, without resorting to threats and punishments, and angry rhetoric. Again, Mr. Bush does not seem to understand this. And it shows. Our strongest Presidents at least demonstrated true leadership abilities. And many were willing to follow.

But don't make the mistake, of misunderstanding being forced to follow, with following freely. A true Leader leads and is freely followed. As such, the position of the President of the United States does give one a podium, to demonstrate true leadership. But it does not demand that others follow, merely because of what it is.

On a side note - I don't recall you taking a lot of heat for Afghanistan (although later, I did remind you, that Afghanistan was being largely ignored). I do recall you taking a lot of heat for Iraq - almost all of which, as it has turned out, more than justified.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

WS, the president of the US, regardless of whether it is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc., is what I meant. I know you have an intense personal problem with our current president but I was not speaking at that level.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yes, I am aware that you meant the position, and not a specific person. I even pointed that out. That I used Mr. Bush to demonstrate a few points, well, you know he is my favorite punching bag

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Yes, you did point that out. I'm reading too fast again

It seems to me that whenever the US holds back, example Bosnia, other countries ask why we don't act. But when we do act, example Iraq, criticism results for acting. That tells me that we are leaders, or at least perceived as such by a great many nations, regardless. Did you not like my basketball player analogy?

Maybe I should point one more thing out. Just because we may be the leader does not mean that we lead effectively or well at all. But even bad leadership is still leadership. Could it be we're quibbling over semantics on this one?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Just finished watching the last debate and was suprrised how the issue of faith/religion questions were asked in respect to gay marriges, overturning of Roe vs Wade and how faith would play in the role of the office of President. You must all agree these issues are important to most Americans just as domestic and foreign issues are. Americans want to know the moral character of each of these canidates. It matters. For all the hype in trying to get religion out of politics it will never happen. IMO God will not allow a secular USA to ever exist. No matter how much or where you try to repress God, God always shows up.
To me, Kerry did not come off to well in this debate. His chronic blaming of Bush for everything bad that is happening in the USA makes him look like a baby whinner. Plus he always repeats himself over and over in his attacks. Does he forget that he is a working part of government in that he voted for/against bills in this present administration too? So, isn't he criticizing himself also?

quote:

---

DL: Unlike his ever so forthcoming and straightforward opponent....?

---

I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about DL. I may be voting for him, but I am not as naive as you may think or insinuate. What it all comes down to in the end though is who speaks to you more. Who speaks to your values and ideals? Who's vision makes more sense to you? What issues concern you most? In the end it is all a matter of personal choice based on issues. You weigh the pros and cons of both and decide. There are two major issues for me in this election, the, as you would say, "so-called" war on terror and abortion. Abortion, to me, is the most costly in terms of human life and the war on terror is for the future safety of our nation and culture. Now all we can do is wait and do our duty on election day and hope that whichever way the election goes it is not too close, that way nobody can complain (as if). Let's just get it over with already.

quote:

---

poi:The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN! The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN! The world is safer without Sadam HUSSEIN!
sorry I couldn't resist

---

Well it is dammit. If purely for humanitarian reasons alone and freeing the people living under his regime it was well worth it in my opinion. I thought you guys on the left were all for that kind of thing. I don't get it.

I think, and we will never truly know, that the world was spared a lot of uneeded anguish because we acted in 1939 and didn't wait until 1945. If we had waited for UN approval perhaps we could have found out at the cost of a few hundred thousand more dead people over the years while people lined their pockets with oil for food money and took bribes from the regime all while voting against sanctions and aggresive action. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

It is my opinion that those against that action (that were not lining their pockets) are suffering from a severe case of short sightedness and forgetfulness.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-14-2004 07:55)

Bugs,

quote:

---

Just because we may be the leader does not mean that we lead effectively or well at all. But even bad leadership is still leadership. Could it be we're quibbling over semantics on this one?

---

The point is, we are not the Leader. That is the point. We are the most powerful. Most powerful != the Leader. if we someohow "ruled" other countries, etc, then one could consider us for that purposes as Leader.

Naturally, when the US does something (anything and everything), everyone else sits up and takes notice. That is a natural consequence of being the most powerful. That in and of itself has nothing to do, with Leadership, or being the Leader.

I know of no other country, that accepts America as a Leader. Do you?

Ramasax -

quote:

---

Abortion, to me, is the most costly in terms of human life and the war on terror is for the future safety of our nation and culture.

---

If this is truely something that you believe in, then you must be against Mr. Bush, and vote for Mr. Kerry. Because the War on Terror has nothing to do with Iraq - in fact, the war there has made the situation even more dangerous, spread American resources thinner, gotten our men and women killed and wounded (1000+ killed, over 16,000 wounded), and yet, our enemies, and the terrorists are still out there, free, still killing, blowing things up, and generally doing as they please. In end effect, the War in Iraq has made the War on Terror even worse.

And you want more of this? You want more potiential terrorists (maybe a few more countries worth)? You want more fertile grounds for terrorists to recruit from? You want more dead Americans in uniform, more cripples and wounded? You want the resources of the US spread even thinner, with even more incompetence?

Under Mr. Bush, the War on Terror is little short of a disaster. I always thought that it was good to finish what one started, when possible. Why didn't we finish Afghanistan and Al-Qaida first, before looking to Iraq? Iraq wasn't going anywhere, wasn't a threat of any kind to the US., and we had all the time in the world to deal with it in our leisure, once Al-Qaida was gone.

And we could have finished the job in Afghanistan.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I'd say the definition of 'leader' is what you are disagreeing about.

To lead, in the way that a strong business leads other businesses, by way of setting trends and examples is one thing.

To be a "leader" as in "governing body" is quite a different story.

It seems that Bugimus is using the first use of the word, whereas WS is using the second....

^True, that.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I think that definitely helps. Thanks, DL.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WS: Under Mr. Bush, the War on Terror is little short of a disaster.

---

I don't know what else to say as we've been through all this before. I just do not see it in the same way you do. I acknowledge the problems in Afghanistan, but I also look at the good being done. They went to the polls this past week, no bombs, no explosions, just a little complaining from the opposition saying the election was fixed, so really no difference from the states in that regard.

This is the first time the people in that region have been able to vote since before the time of Christ. Before we even went over there people were saying it would be another Vietnam, that the Russians fought with them for years and got nowhere. Look how far they have come. Surely you can see some good in all this. It has only been a few years, a very short period of time with regard to the grand scheme of things and I think to judge at this point is premature.

To me Afghanistan is a huge accomplishment. Yes, there is lot's to be done, but no matter what problems there are, I believe by giving the citezens a taste of freedom, something none of them have ever had, it will be very beneficial for the future of the country and region as a whole.

You may think I support these actions because I want to see blood or want revenge. That could not be farther from the truth. Sure I want Al Queda punished for what they have done around the world and here at home, and they are being punished, but more importantly I want the people over there to be able to enjoy the lives all of us enjoy and take for granted. The freedoms to choose for themselves without the fear of reprisal from dictators and religiously intolerant leaders. The freedom to vote and choose their leadership. The freedom of women to get an education and participate in their society as relevant human beings, not as a piece of meat to be dominated. Even the little things count, like the freedom to fly a kite if you choose to do so. The freedom to read whatever books you want. The list goes on.

It seems to me that the standards you and many like you hold for the Bush administration could not be upheld in a court of law.

Same thing goes for Iraq. I do believe there were terrorist ties, another fundamental disagreement in our views. Even without that I still believe, as I said above, that liberating 25million is a worthwhile cause. We see the worst everyday in the news, we rarely see all the good that is happening there.

Now it comes out that Russia, Germany, and France were all benefiting from the Oil-for-Food program and secret deals with the regime, which again, is why we could not get UN approval. It was a fixed trial and going through that system would never have worked.

I agree that the human cost of war is tragic, but to me the human cost of suffering under Saddam and the Taliban far outweighs that, all IMHO of course.

One last note of more relation to the original topic. Another reason I do not support John Kerry is his actions on returning from the Vietnam war and the consequences created by said actions. My father was severely injured in Vietnam. My uncle was killed. To me what he did dishonored all veterans. If he wanted to come home and confess his own war crimes so be it, but to speak on behalf of every soldier that was over there is preposterous and just plain wrong. It shows an immense lack of judgement in my view.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/ - How did John's actions affect the POWs?

The same issue also makes me question his character of leadership. He admits to war crimes that he commited. Well if he had such a big problem with them, why did he commit them in the first place? Why carry out orders that you find wrong on such a grand scale (if those orders were even issued)? Sure, perhaps he was afraid of reprisal, but given the same choice, follow orders to burn villages and kill innocents or deny them and face courtmartial/jail time, I would choose the latter, for my conscience and the lives of those who I was ordered to harm.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-16-2004 20:23)