Why you shouldn't vote for John Kerry

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by kartaron, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. 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
    I've found a good reason to vote Kerry: The rest of the world. You see Bush, and with him half of America's population, slowly drift away from the rest of the world. I think that overall, under the Bush administration, the rest of the countries got alienated, distanced or grew a particular hate towards America. Now, the mightiest coutry in the world it may be, there is a limit to what the rest of the world will take from the USA. And I would say they are pretty close to the border of isolation, strange as it may sound. And another 4 years of Bush could just push the whole situation over the edge. And I know that you guys think we don't have any business with you and your politics, but you are also dependant on us. And if things in the international scene change, America and it's economy will collapse, no matter what. I would say that voting for Bush is the first step towards international disaster for America. Concider that when voting.
     
  2. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    We are truly at a critical point (speaking as an American) where our values and morality are being tested in the light of the international conscience! Consider that when voting!
     
  3. 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
    Turambar, I personally, would love to be isolated from the world of corrupt organizations like the United Nations and corrupt nations like France. And if they don't want to do business with us because they don't agree with our foreign policy, that's fine with me. But I doubt they would do that. They did business with Saddam himself. They have no morals, no standards, no principles.

    And can we get some people in here to actually defend Kerry? Not to just say, "well, he's better than Bush, because Bush willl destroy the world"?
     
  4. 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
    Corrupt the UN may be, I don't know. That seems to be it's reputation in America, but not far outside. But there is no alternative. And if the choice would be UN or US, only one nation is going to choose the latter. Hence, Isolation. And also accept that it would most probably mean economical isolation and not even America could sustain that for very long.

    For now, all these claims about knowing better then about all the nations in the world reeks of arrogance, something that isn't working in advantage of the US either. Being the mightiest nation in the world doesn't make you are always right. I mean, nothing can stop the US from doing whatever they want. But in the long term, if no one agrees, that would have major repercussions.
     
  5. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    14) The questions Kerry refuses to answer.

    Decision Iraq
    Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?

    By Bob Woodward
    Sunday, October 24, 2004

    (Robert Upshur "Bob" Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is one of the best-known journalists in the United States, thanks largely to his work in helping uncover the Watergate scandal of President Richard Nixon while working as a reporter for the Washington Post. He has since written ten bestselling books detailing major events.)

    The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.

    At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."

    In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

    Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.

    Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:

    1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.

    Questions: If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?

    2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a "lessons learned" study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.

    Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy -- negotiations at the U.N. and covert action -- made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?

    3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous "axis of evil" speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.

    Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President Kerry frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?

    4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.

    Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?

    5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.

    Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?

    6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.

    Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?

    7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.

    Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?

    8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq -- "You break it, you own it."

    Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?

    9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.

    Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory -- getting Saddam out of power -- possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?

    10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.

    Questions: How might a President Kerry have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?

    11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."

    Questions: What might a President Kerry have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?

    12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.

    Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?

    13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him "You can count on this" -- i.e., war.

    Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?

    14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.

    Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a Kerry administration?

    15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.

    Question: What do you think of the timing of this?

    16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, "If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours." Bush was optimistic but took no action.

    Question: What would a President Kerry have done about this conciliatory statement?

    17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.

    Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?

    18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. "And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt," Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.

    Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?

    19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a "fever," an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others -- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- were part of "a separate little government."

    Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?

    20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become "dangerously protective" of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.

    Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?

    21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.

    Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?

    22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead," he said.

    Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?

    Bob Woodward is a Post reporter and assistant managing editor. He is the author of 12 books, including two on the current administration, "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack."
     
  6. AcrobaticHippo

    AcrobaticHippo Determined

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,727
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    In Turtleopia, training Elan's turtles :P
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0
    I'm not an American, but I'm just voicing my view:

    You people overlook one thing: stem cell research. Bush condemns it, Kerry approves of it. I think, if stem cell research is allowed in the United States, which harbours many leading scientists, many advancements can be made in the field of science. As for humanitarian rights, well, let's say I cannot establish a link. If those groups are running amok over "the rights of humans" and preventing medical advancements, there wouldn't be more cures for humans, these humans would die off, and there'll be less people to enjoy "human rights".

    Besides, let me bring up one major incident. Do you know the world's rarest disease? It's smallpox. A long time ago, however, it was one of the deadliest diseases in the world. A man named Edward Jenner found the cure for it. Do you know how he tested it? He injected many people with cowpox. There was a risk, and with today's standards it would have violated "human rights", but if not for his discovery, people might have been croaking by the millions even today.

    Therefore, if the scientists are confined within barriers like "human rights", they would not be able to cure people with paralysis and whatnot. The stem cell research issue is the main reason why I support Mr Kerry. He knows that finding cures for diseases are more suitable to be called human rights than preventing them. I strongly believe in stem cell research, and I think Mr Kerry should win, to save thousands of people from suffering. People willl be able to lead better lives.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. 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
    Go, Jnanee!

    I have to note, though that Jenner's work was hihly unethical. He used a 5-year old boy to test his theory. First grafting a cowpox sample, followed by a smalpox sample. If his theory was wrong... lets just say he wouldn't have been the hero he is now... Besides, my opinion is that the invention of the smallpox vaccine (that word is derived from the scientific name for cow pox, Variola Vaccina) solved one problem but gave rise to many others. By the way, smallpox is officially not a desease anymore, since it has been eradicated in the '80's of the last century.

    And I agree that in the case of stemcell research the use of surplus frozen embryo's should be used since they can prevent more harm then is done by "killing" such embryos.
     
  8. 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
    Not to mention that Jenner never actually found out the scientifical reason why Cowpox prevented Smallpox. ;)

    But I agree. The UK allows Stem Cell Research (I believe), so a good percentage of the scientific community will be moving there unless Kerry gets in. One of the sole reasons I support Kerry is because I really want to see the most powerful nation in the world use it's wealth towards something that can make a difference.
     
  9. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    Bush blocked federal funding of stem cell research. California is now publically funding stem cell research as are some several private companies and individuals. Please note we have invested massive amounts of money (more than any other disease into 'promising' AIDS research and that hasnt yielded any of the desired benefits. Or even concrete proof of how the virus starts and what it does.

    There are alternatives to using foetesus for the collection for stem cells as well.
     
  10. 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
    hah, finally some support. I've taken some real heavy fire here... That reminds me Karta, we should set our differences aside once and drink a pint or two. We may actually like each other ;)

    Now, now Karta... There are some real good medicine on the market now, incuding a prophylaxis. With the newest drug, Fuzeon (Fuzeon RULES!!!!), the action of infiltration is elucidated, the intracellular mechanism is ilucidated, thank God. We know exactly what this little pest is up to. The only problems are that a vaccine is immensely difficult to make, since the target, the Immune system, should eradicate the virus before it does it's worst. Almost impossible. And the medicine are still too expensive for the countries with the worst epidemias. That's all.

    Name them. If that would be so, surely Science would have taken the opportunity. Oh, and by the way... we are talking ebryos here, otherwise it wouldn't be of any use.
     
  11. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    Sounds good to me but im not sure either of us wants to jump for the plane tickets.

    I read a little to get myself updated ... I knew the medicine is getting better but hadnt realized that the researchers had refuted the sceptics so well lately. I read an article that explained the research similarities between HIV and Hep B. Both of which are basically identified by symptom and not a direct biochemical cause and effect. If you have a link that dissects the action and mechanism Ill read it.

    Hey, it took a lot for me to write 'foetuses'. Anything less than 'babies' in my opinion lends credibility to the pro abortion cause. Anytime you can dehumanize something to an 'it', it becomes easier to deal with in inhumane ways.

    The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (now the presidents council on bioethics) has identified many potential avenues of stem cell research which would not involve the use of human embryos. Included in these are techniques which would stimulate the growth and specialization of stem cells found in adult tissues and the use of stem cells from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. Adult stem cells, despite their name, can be taken from children or adults, without harming them, or from umbilical cord blood after the birth of a child, or from recently displaced 'baby' teeth.

    and another Kerry lie:


    and read this, you wont believe it

     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  12. 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
    I don't completely agree on these statements. The only stemcells we can harvest from humans right now are the Haemapoietic (sp?) stemcells. They can differentiate to all different kinds of bloodcells, and a couple of others, as is turns out now, like inner bloodvessel cells (endothelium). The holy grail of stemcell research is the totipotent stemcell. That cell is able to differentiate to all kinds of other stemcells, and eventually to all cells different cells. They only occur in substantial quantities in the very early stages after conception. Whether they occur in adults is unknown.

    I know there are some good articles in Nature about the HIV/AIDS mechanisms, but they are subscription only. Upon request, I can send you a copy od one of those since the university has access to all these journals. As for now, I can give a summary to the HIV mechanisms:

    After entering the bloodstream, the HIV virus attaches to a specific anchor site on the T helper cell. (Th). This is probably the most important immunecell in the body, since it directs other cells to specific tasks. After attachment of the virus to the cell wall, it will harpoon the cell and thus entering the cell, where it's protein coat is removed. Next, the RNA in the virus is translated, and an enzyme, RNA Reverse transcriptase translates it into DNA, which is taken up in the nucleus and incorporated in the Th cell's genomic DNA. Now, the cell is infected and it can take years before anything happens. But when it does, the cell will transcribe the virus DNA to RNA and from that RNA, the protein shells are developed. Now, I am not sure anymore whether the cell will go into overkill virus production and burst or will gradually produce virus particles over a streched period of time. But in the end the cell dies, after massive reproduction of the virus. And over a period of about 10-15 years nearly all Th cells will be infected, and the immunesystem will gradually decay.
     
  13. 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
    You don't know if the UN is corrupt? Look at the evidence. It's right there. Kartaron posted stuff in this thread about the Oil for Food program I believe.

    How is there no alternative to the UN? There's alwaus another alternative? Why are they so great? Most of the member countries are dictatorships. I'm sure they know a whole lot a freedom and democracy.

    If everyone would choose the UN over us, then why are there over 25 nations supporting us?

    Have any of us ever claimed that we are right simply because we are the biggest and most powerful nation in the world? No, we've claimed we are right because we are looking at the FACTS.
     
  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
    LoS... looking at evidence also needs a sceptical mind and good data analyses. Facts and conclusions don't always allign. I somehow have the feeling the US is looking for reasons not to comply to the UN. And the scandal you mention seems to fit perfectly... By the way, do you notice the word alleged in that post... over and over again. We need proof before judging...

    So what is it with the US that they have such strong desire to neglect the rest of the world? Do you think you know better or something?

    Oh, and I want to mention something else. Something left out of account too long, as it seems. The US-Visit program. But I will start a new thread on that.
     
  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
    Looking at evidence needs a skeptical mind and good analysis. True. Are you implying that I and/or others don't have one? Because I'm an American, I'm already "biased" against the UN, therefore I cannot look at evidence objectively?

    You have a "feeling" that the US is looking for ways to get around the UN? So because we went into Iraq without their approval have evil intentions that we are trying to cover up? What do you think those evil intentions are, pray tell? The bad intentions were on the other side. Saddam was paying the French and the Germans to vote against us at the UN to stop us from coming in. And they were selling Saddam arms. One of our pilots was shot down by a missile in Iraq. It was a missile made by the FRENCH. I have a major problem with that. I don't care to hang around and listen to people who are giving wepaons to a madman and then trying to stop us from going in there so no one will find out. They put saving their own rear ends over doing the right thing. The proof is there.

    How are we neglecting the rest of the world? We've only brought freedom to millions of suppressed people around the globe. Apparently that doesn't count since we don't listen to France...