Why we don't need Bush

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Ranger_of_Gondor, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    There most certainly is a terrorist presence in Iraq, this is precisely what you are all complaining you see on the news!!!!!!!!! Who are these insurgents!?

    Again back to my fundamental point to vote for a candidate by default - considering that he will lead the most powerful nation on this earth; is THE WORST REASON ANYONE COULD EVER HAVE! How do you know that your candidate who is just not Bush, will turn out any better than Bush? What a scary, ignorant, juvenile mentality!
     
  2. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    And? It's been almost two years and we haven't gotten a drop from Iraq.

    Besides, why can't Europe ever step in every now and then and clean up their messes in that part of the world and not rely on the USA to do everything?
     
  3. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Justice brings up a good and often neglected point, that is; if Kerry wins he will demand (supposedly) more from the international community - he is going to be more bi-lateral. What about that? Going from a president who is viewed by many as being too unilateral, to one who would call on these cynical nations to stop their griping and DO SOMETHING!!!! Is Sudan the US' fault? Why when it is helpful to your agenda do you call on the US for help!? There is a serious double-standard here.
     
  4. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Oh and here is a shocking new piece of material - read this, the Chicago Tribune (liberal breeding ground) endorses Bush!:


    George W. Bush for president

    Published October 17, 2004

    One by one, Americans typically settle on a presidential candidate after weighing his, and his rival's, views on the mosaic of issues that each of us finds important.

    Some years, though, force vectors we didn't anticipate turn some of our usual priorities--our pet causes, our own economic interest--into narcissistic luxuries. As Election Day nears, the new force vectors drive our decision-making.

    This is one of those years--distinct in ways best framed by Sen. John McCain, perhaps this country's most broadly respected politician. Seven weeks ago, McCain looked with chilling calm into TV cameras and told Americans, with our rich diversity of clashing worldviews, what is at stake for every one of us in the first presidential election since Sept. 11 of 2001:

    "So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ... All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second." If we waver, McCain said, "we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed--to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit."

    This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

    One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

    This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of s wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

    A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

    Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

    There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to te the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

    But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

    Bush, his critics say, displays an arrogance that turns friends into foes. Spurned at the United Nations by "Old Europe"--France, Germany, Russia--he was too long in admitting he wanted their help in a war. He needs to acknowledge that his country's future interests are best served by fixing frayed friendships. And if re-elected, he needs to accomplish that goal.

    But that is not the whole story. Consider:

    Bush has nurtured newer alliances with many nations such as Poland, Romania and Ukraine (combined population, close to 110 million) that want more than to be America's friends: Having seized their liberty from tyrants, they are determined now to be on the right side of history.

    Kerry is an internationalist, a man of conspicuous intellect. He is a keen student of world affairs and their impact at home.

    But that is not the whole story. Consider:

    On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.

    Kerry displays great faith in diplomacy as the way to solve virtually all problems. Diplomatic solutions should always be the goal. Yet that principle would be more compelling if the world had a better record of confronting true crises, whether proffered by the nuclear-crazed ayatollahs of Iran, the dark eccentrics of North Korea, the genocidal murderers of villagers in Sudan--or the Butcher of Baghdad.

    In each of these cases, Bush has pursued multilateral strategies. In Iraq, when the UN refused to enforce its 17th stern resolution--the more we learn about the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food program, the more it's clear the fix was in--Bush acted. He thus reminded many of the world's governments why they dislike conservative and stubborn U.S. presidents (see Reagan, Ronald).

    Bush has scored a great success in Afghanistan--not only by ousting the Taliban regime and nurturing a new democracy, but also by ignoring the chronic doubters who said a war there would be a quagmire. He and his administration provoked Libya to surrender its weapons program, turned Pakistan into an ally against terrorists (something Bill Clinton's diplomats couldn't do) and helped shut down A.Q. Khan, the world's most menacing rogue nuclear proliferator.

    Many of these cross-currents in Bush's and Kerry's worldviews collide in Iraq.

    Bush arguably invaded with too few allies and not enough troops. He will go to his tomb defending his reliance on intelligence from agencies around the globe that turned out to be wrong. And he has refused to admit any errors.

    Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn't vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush's plan. All of which perplexes many.

    Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. ("I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat.") What's not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party's nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war--driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein's of Kuwait.

    On domestic issues, the choice is also clear. In critical areas such as public education and health care, Bush's emphasis is on greater competition. His No Child Left Behind Act has flaws, but its requirements have created a new climate of expectation and accountability. On both of these important fronts, but especially with his expensive health-care plan, Kerry primarily sees a need to raise and spend more money.

    The failure of either candidate to offer spending and taxation proposals that remotely approach balancing the federal budget is an embarrassment to both. The non-partisan Concord Coalition calculates the 10-year impact of Bush's proposals as a negative $1.33 trillion; the impact of Kerry's is a nearly identical $1.27 trillion. Kerry correctly cites the disturbingly expensive legacy of Bush's tax cuts--while, in the same breath, promising new tax cuts of his own.

    This is a genre of American fiction that Bush, if he is re-elected, cannot perpetuate. To Bush's credit, his tax policies have had the aggregate effect of pushing Americans toward more savings and investment--the capital with which the world's strongest economy generates jobs. But he has not shown the necessary discipline on discretionary spending. Two particularly egregious examples: Medicare prescription drug coverage and an enormously expensive farm subsidy bill, both signed by Bush.

    This country's paramount issue, though, remains the threat to its national security.

    John Kerry has been a discerning critic of where Bush has erred. But Kerry's message--a more restrained assault on global threats, earnest comfort with the international community's noble inaction--suggests what many voters sense: After 20 years in the Senate, the moral certitude Kerry once displayed has evaporated. There is no landmark Kennedy-Kerry Education Act, no Kerry-Frist Health Bill. Today's Kerry is more about plans and process than solutions. He is better suited to analysis than to action. He has not delivered a compelling blueprint for change.

    For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II.

    That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.

    Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
     
  5. Lego

    Lego God amongst men

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -0
    What America seems to forget is that it isn't there job to step in and take action whenever they thinks it's neccesary...that's the thing that pisses everyone in the world off..if there is a problem in a country let the people in that country sort it out..it isn't Americas or The U.K's job to bully everyone on the planet and sort everything out when a little problem occurs. It's like having somone stopping uyou from doing somthing you've worked really hard on and telling you that you did it wrong and then do it themselves.
     
  6. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Legolas - you are living in a dream world; other nations problems became our problems the day that four planes hit our soil! We will NOT stand back and let these oppressive regimes and malevolent dictators run the show and mandate the US' actions!
     
  7. Lego

    Lego God amongst men

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -0
    Well if that's the way you think then I imagine there will be more attacks to come and the worse thing is, every other counrtry in the world is being dragged down with you.
     
  8. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Freedom does demand a price, and we as a nation should not wait until atttacked - we must be proactive!
     
  9. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Here are more reasons of why Mr. Bush is a bad president:

    .He seems to think that this war in Iraq has to do with 9/11. The truth is none of this did. al-Qaeda did. Do you know where they are? In Afgan. Not Iraq. Then how come we are in Iraq?

    .It seems Bush is more focused on Iraq then the USA! He is looking for weapons that aren't there when he should be more focused on the USA or Afganastan.

    .How do you expect to change a country from a violent area to a peacfull area? News flash, you can't. It is there part of life. There will always be violent situations down there because the tribes will always be fighting. You can't settle that conflict because that is the way of life in that country. Even if the U.S. is able to keep the country under controll, the instant we puil out something will start up again. Hopefully though whein/if that hapens we won't have someone like Bush as president so we don't find ourselves in there AGAIN.

    I will read all your replies to my thread later. More errors of Bush's ways to come.
     
  10. Vandral

    Vandral Dark One Reborn

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina, Sk. Canada.
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    I don't mean to offend anyone (So no hatemail please), but if you want a Canadian perspective.... I think both candidates are weak. Both Bush and Kerry strike me as simple "yes" men. If it were up to me, I'd remove Bush, and put John McCain in power.
     
  11. Lego

    Lego God amongst men

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -0
    Don't you see though? it is that kind of attitude that makes people hate you and want to attack you...Bush is very Irresponsible, when he was told about the attack on the World trade center he just sat in a class room for half an hour reading a book about a goat...and then instead of being with his people what did he do? he went on vacation to his texas ranch and played some golf? what kind of psycho path can so easily just shrug off this tragedy play some golf and then plan on in his words "Smoke em out!!!!" I don't get it....I don't understand why a man so irresponsible and blatantly stupid can be worshipped so much by you people.
     
  12. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Nicely pointed out Legolas. And you know what else he did? When he was told about the attack, he just looked there blankly, not doing anything. You think as the president he would have a better reaction.
     
  13. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Please do not let Michael Moore tell you what happened in our country.

    By the way thank you for being respectful in your discussions, hopefully we can continue this tone - we are all part of this community after all.
     
  14. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    OK, here's one to think about. The Bush administration doesn't differ that much from the Islamic fundamentalists. They are both very concervative, patriotistic, religious and they hold on to a major value they are prepared to fight for. For the Muslims that is The Islam and the Sha'ria, for the Americans it is America and it's superiority. Now, there isn't anyone in the entire world that is going to convince me that two groups so similar and fundamental in their way of thinking that they will make way for the other. This will continue, no matter what, until either is so severely damaged (probably both) that continuing the struggle would be concidered pure suicide. Since the Muslims believe they go to heaven that way, my best guess is it will be the Americans who will budge first.
     
  15. Lady_of_Shalott

    Lady_of_Shalott Weaving the Magic Web

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    8,237
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +63 / 0 / -0
    The Bush administration does not differ from Islamic fundamentalists? Give me a break, Turambar. We don't go around blowing ourselves and other people up just because we don't like them/don't agree with them. We're fighting them because they WANT TO KILL US. I doubt any of them would hestitate to cut off my head, or yours.

    Normal human beings do not do things like that. You cannot reason with those people. We can't sit around and talk to them and try to figure out why they hate us while they continue to kill us. They hate us simply because of who we are. All those aid workers and other people they have taken hostage and killed have never done anything to them, except not be Muslim. You can't tell me that there's not something majorly wrong with that.

    And we do not fight for American superiority. We are fighting to protect ourselves. In case you've forgotten, we were attacked on September 11th. Over 3,000 people died. And that wasn't the beginning. There were numerous past incidents. The embassy bombings, the USS Cole explosion, and the crazy Islamics who threw the old Jewish man off the side of the cruise ship. He was in a wheelchair. They just up and threw him over the side for no reason other than he was a Jew.

    And we are not trying to make room for each other. The vast, vast majority of the world's Muslim population do not agree with this sort of thing. We are trying to get rid of those crazy ones that go around KILLING PEOPLE.

    So we should stop because it could turn into pure suicide? It's already gotten to that point on the terrorists side. We are winning. They are losing. They lost their hold on Afghanistan. The elections were held there without a hitch in October. They are free. Iraq is going to have free elections soon also. They are on the run and losing. An ideaology like theirs does not exactly attract a whole lot of people. Most people do not care to blow themselves up. Don't sit there and tell me we are going to give up and that we can't/aren't winning and that our cause is not just.
     
  16. Radagast

    Radagast Art House Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Saskatchewan, Canada.
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    Umm...LoS, I think you misread what Tur was saying. What he did directly say about the two being the same was that:

    He never said that the Americans fight by "blowing ourselves and other people up just because we don't like them/don't agree with them."

    Never once did he compare 'battle' techniques and say that they are the same. He only pointed out the motives behind the actions, when broken down to the basics, are the same.

    Unless your think that America is liberal, non-patriotic, non-religious and have no values. Then they would be different. But the fact is, both America and the Islamic Radicals have those four characteristics in common.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Thank you, Radagast. You seem to get the point!

    Yes, and if I'm not mistaken the Americans want to kill them. And so far, I think the Americans are the most succesfull. But you have to realise they (Al-Qaeda) are not fighting without a cause. They have the feeling the Americans (and the rest of the western civilisation alike) occupy certain countries in the Middle-East, such as Israel and Saudi-Arabia before 9/11 and after that also Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that Saudi-Arabia story is a bit hard to explain, but it comes down to the the fact that they see it as desacraction (sp?) of the Holy country. It's much like we (used to) think Israel belongs to the Jews. Anyway, they are prepared to free their homlands of American (western) soldiers and influences, if possible. Now, one could call that Patriottism, and I think it is closer to that then all Americans think.

    It isn't that far yet. But look for an example to Israel and the second Intifada. Every action asks for retaliation, every death should be revenged with a murder, or multiple murder, at the best. Now, the Middle-East conflict is going that way. And I think that within a year or so, Al-Qaeda is ready to revenge on America in such a spectacular way, 9/11 might be forgotten. And then, what next? Hit on Al-Qaeda (that is, the Middle East, since we don't exactly know what Al-Qaeda is...) even harder, so that Al-Qaeda feels forced to make an even bigger move? You make the call.
     
  18. Lego

    Lego God amongst men

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -0
    The Iraqi people or government have never said thay they wanted to kill you...And LOTR fan if you are going to patrinise me then I don't think I want to debate with you anymore. and for your information I do not base my ideas on what Michael Moore says, I am and outsider, from England I can quite easily see the effect that America is having on the world without having a biased view.
     
  19. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    We wouldn't have our troops heads being blown off if Bush didn't send us into Iraq. Atleast not as much. The terroist in Afgan were our threat, not the ones in Iraq.
     
  20. Bard

    Bard Erchamion

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,874
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    Iraq and the Hussein administration have been a threat to America since the Gulf war.