Bush vs Kerry

[Bograt]

Four years ago I supported Bush's campaign- partly because I am conservative in nature and partly because I didn't respect Clinton and hence Gore.

The rumours and innuendo surrounding Bush didn't sway me, because I felt that the people surrounding him were top quality. Standing at the ruins of the WTC and telling fire fighters that "the people who did this will be hearing from all of us soon" inspired me. The NATO action in Astan was decisive and it appeared that we were close to getting OBL in Tora Bora. Then something happened. The US turned its attention to Iraq. At the time I thought "Okay, intelligence must know something that we don't" Powell's presentation to the UN was moving.

The Iraqi campaign was quick, and I thought that the liberation would radically change how the arab community views the west. The pulling down the statue of Sadaam has illustrated the headaches the coalition has faced. When the US soldier placed a flag over the head of the statue I cringed- the occupation symbolically began

The justification behind the war in Iraq was
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Connection to Alqueda (Mohammad Atta's meeting in Prague)
3. Clear and present danger to the US

The first two points have been refuted. However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy.

The third point raises an interesting academic question. Is it okay for soveriegn nations to take unilateral military action without the support of UN in the name of national security?
Is it okay under these hypothetical and real conditions?
China- Taiwan?
Syria- Lebenon?
Iraq- Kuwait?

My 2 cents.


On a lighter note this link is worth a look:

http://www.kontraband.com/show/popup.asp?ID=1632

 

[rw4th]

The first two points have been refuted.

This always irks me a little. Does anyone really think that any intel would and should be made public? Or that a warehouse full of boxes marked â Å“Weapons of Mass Destructionâ ? would ever be found?

Here a link to some news that contradict the statement that the WMD and terrorists ties issue has been refuted.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

and the actual documents are here

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041011a.html

A business exists to make a profit. It can have no other purpose or it will not survive. If a company has to pay too much in taxes, then they WILL cut jobs to make their profits. Less paying jobs = less overall taxes being payed to the government. Apart from lottery winners and people who inherit wealth (i.e Paris Hilton types) building wealth requires hard work.

Anyway, I won't go off on rant here, but my point is: less taxes for businesses (i.e â Å“the richâ ?) = more jobs , more jobs=more taxpayers

Bush gets this, Kerry does not.

 

[winchable]

However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy

Agreed, and both of them are quite upfront about it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How unfortunate that it took a war to prove there are no stockpiles of WMD, and to eliminate any likelihood they could be developed in future.  Hindsight and sanctimony are such natural companions.

 

[NavyGrunt]

The first two points have been refuted. However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy.

My problem is that the world attacks the states for not doing anything about North Korea but then if they didthey would be attacked for doing something. Do you really expect the states to go at it alone in North Korea again on top of Iraq and a an operation still going on in Afghan? Maybe if the rest of the world would step in an help in Iraq we would have more options for dealing with N.K. but right now we don't. And the U.N is still yak yak yak....North Korea isnt just an America problem. So why should they have to cast the first stone?

 

[Kirkhill]

Iraq shouldn't have been attacked because North Korea and Iran weren't.

As well there are lots of other places that present threats.  And they weren't dealt with.

In addition there are many places that abuse people within there borders.  And they weren't dealt with.

The Americans didn't tackle everything all at once therefore they shouldn't have tackled anything at all......................Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Do what you can with what you have available and change things one regime at a time.

Think locally and act globally.

Iraq, if it wasn't at the top of the list for regime change it was certainly near to the top.

 

[Bograt]

My point is perhaps a scholastic one. The justification of the war is the issue. Initially it was stated that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the west as a result of their stockpiles of WMD, and their clear links to terrorist activities. Both of these points provide a definite mechanism for nation states to take unilateral action to ensure its security. However, the 9-11 commission has stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq particpated in the events that tragic September. Also it was suggested that intelligence knew the sites where these stockpiles were located and that western Europe was 45 minutes away from missile attack. We were mistaken.

Now it appears thats some are suggesting that regime change was/is the justification for the war. This fails the credibility litmus test. Within the realm of international law, regime change is not a trump card states can use to conduct military action. It wouldn't be acceptable if China played this card in Taiwan, or Iran used it against A-stan, or Newfoundland used it against Cape Breton

I am a conservative a heart. I also believe that leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. We deserve that.

Writing these two posts have been like dancing in a mind field. I have tried to be very careful on how I presented my opinion. I am not a dove, nor anti-American, nor a liberal, nor a commie, nor a tree hugger.

 

[Acorn]

Pappy wrote (my emphasis in bold:
3. cross border labour-the US came down hard on border issues after post 9/11.  i..."
Well the US boirder has been a miss for years.  9/11 was a big shock to some in the US, some knew it was a matter of time.  Terrorism has been going on for years.  9/11 hurt the US economy, since the US/Canada and the entire world is one big economy what happens here effects others, can't be helpped.  The fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers came in from Canada, well both side have to take blame for that crap.  The US had it's head in the sand thinking it would never happen to us, again knee-jerk reactions from the uninformed masses screaming to the politicians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that not a single 9/11 attacker entered the US via Canada. They all obtained US visas legally.

If you're thinking of the individual picked up in WA allegedly on his way to LA for the Y2K celebrations, yes, he did enter via Canada. The story I've heard though, is that he, and his cohorts, were on the CISIS or RCMP watch list, and US authorities were tipped to pick him up as soon as he crossed. He wasn't lifted in Canada because Canadian authorities didn't have enough evidence to convince a judge.

Canada's problem is not that it is easy to get in, it isn't. The problem is that once here, our laws make it difficult to deport those we don't want here.

Consider this little tidbit:

Prior to 9/11 60-70% of all refugee applicants in Canada entered via the good ol' US of A.

Acorn

 

[Spr.Earl]

Now Dubya and the GOP as of the last debate are attacking Kerry for using Chaney's daughters sexuality in regards to the Gay conflict.
Is this a diversion from the real faults of the present Admin.?
Kerry has hit home on many flaws so far i.e the deficit,health care etc.

 

[muskrat89]

If it's a diversion, it is Edwards and Kerry that both created it..... Mary Cheney's sexuality, in the context of the debates, was irrelevant, but the Dems chose to bring it up  ???

 

[lfejoel25]

i think it's kind of funny the different ways that democrats and republicans look at the same issues in the US.

not really much of an opinion on bush/kerry, but it's still relavent.

like how pappy and i were discussing a couple of issues, and the way he sees certain issues differently from me really made me think.

so i was watching american news for the past few days, and started to wonder.

do you think that a lot of people vote democrat/republican simply because of that's just what they do rather than voting for a candidate or issues?

eg  "Here in Texas, you vote republican"

 

[pappy]

First I agree with the post a few more ahead of this one, regarding Kerry using Cheny's daughter being a distraction.....  Typicaly Kerry move, from the 1960's on he's been doing the same.  I'm one of the old folks here that remembers him from the first time he hit the public scene in the 1970s.  Kerry will say anything to get elected,  he's doing the same with Ken Reaves death,  come on, now Kerry says "elect me and I'll make the cripple walk again..."  pretty much BS to me.  Stem cell research may in fact many many many years in the future be of some use.  It's not likely to in our lifetime, sad to have a Politician spew that crap when no major research is even going on.  Bush was the first President to fund this research, so far no major company has even started to research this on a large scale.  It's all too new yet to honestly say it will even pan out to any cures decades from now.  I remember the cure for Cancer was just around the corner..... hummm still working on that one.  I remember them saying Nuclear energy will make electricity "too cheap to meter"  funny I still get charged on my monthly bills....

Personally I think stem cell research if fine, lets do it, but damn, lets not promise the moon when we haven't even gotten out of the lab yet.

Kerry had no right to use Cheney's daughter to further his own cause, he didn't need to use her at all.  If Cheney want to mention her, well it's his daughter, that's his right.
And it's between him and his daughter, only. 
Kerry crossed to line.  He never even anwsered the question entirely.  If he wasn't pandering to get votes he could have come made his point without slaming Cheneys daughter.

And again, it's all smoke and mirrors, who cares who sleeps with who?  gay rights, abortion, flu shots, etc. not the goverments business.

Personally I don't think anyone should get any special treatment from the US goverment marriage wise, its a personaly decision between a couple be they man/women, woman/woman or man/man, am I leaving anyone out?  No tax breaks for anyone.  It's common sense to allow any couple to have equal legal rights. but none should get beniifits from the goverment.  All treated equal.  And the goverment has no place in the descission.  But equal / legal rights shouldn't come with tax breaks.

as to whether people think before they vote about the important issues. GOD I HOPE SO!!!! Do I think all do, sad to say they don't.
I personally think there should be a "None of the above, choose two (or More) canidates, you all suck" check box. 
It sucks when you have to make a decission on whos the lesser of two evils rather then whos the best man for the job.
But thats reality.
In Oregon in local and state elections, if the majority of ALL registered votes don't vote in any given election the ballot measures don't count.  Thats a simplifaction, like all laws its 1000's of words.  But in a way that makes sense.

Personally I think Presidential elections in the US should only have a 3-month campaining cycle, all with eqaul public funding and free (equal) air (radio/TV) time / newspaper space provided by the news media, they think they are 'part of the goverment" let them provide equal time to all canidates.  And after 3 months if the majority of registered voters don't vote, toss out that election and start over.  With new canidates if needed.
Will that happen?, not likely

Do I think Bush is perfect? no
Do I think Kerry is perfect? no
Would I like to see two NEW more qualified canidates on the ballot? (or more if there where any 3rd party viable parties), HELL YES.

But the Choice in the US is Bush or Kerry, thats our choices, like it or not.  But at least we ALL should vote. 
The fact that so few vote in the US is disgusting, plain and simple.

Funny thing is if we have a tie, (and lets not start that old aurgement Bush lost, all the recounts proved he did win,  Electorial College rules, PERIOD) in the Electorial College (the 2000 election was not a tie in the Electorial college), we could have Bush/Edwards or Kerry/Cheney...... one of those would be interesting.

The people claiming Bush lost the "real" election fail to mention history in that thier "god" John F. Kennedy won the same way in 1960.  JFK won the Electorial College and lost the popular vote.

But why the Electorial College is the better way vs. the popular vote is a whole other ranting thread.

Lets not even get started on the democrates thinking it's ok to allow non-citizens / non-registered voters vote.  They think asking for ID / Proof of citizenship is racest.  Lets get real folks.  Should US citiezens be alowed to vote in Canadian elections? or Mexican elections?

Who ever your for, Americans just get out there and VOTE, too many died to give / protect that right.  And the same goes for Canadians, at least in your own elections. haha

Rant off

 

[1feral1]

I don't really like Kerry, and if I was an American, I would be a Republican, and vote for Bush!

Either way, the US election day is fast approaching. We are hearng here, that its Bush who is slightly leading.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[winchable]

What will it take for a viable third party to ever appear in the US?
Or probably more accurately,
Will it ever be possible for a viable third party to appear in the US?

I don't mean a party there as a means of influencing elections I mean one which would have enough support to actually challenge the two main parties for the presidency?

I've always seen this as a downfall of America Democracy, either as a result of the hold which the two parties have on the country or as a result of voter complacency. If anyone can make an argument otherwise I'd like to hear it, not trying to be confrontational, I mean it more as a scholastic question.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3752212.stm

This BBC type makes an interesting observation about the American political system and why this election has become so much of a battle.  He suggests that it is possible that the losing party could end up with a really divided base.

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader tried to create 3rd parties by trying to find room between two behemoths.  Maybe it is more likely that a 3 party contest occurs when one of the two breaks apart and the bits reform.  If I'm not mistaken this has already happened in US history.  It happened in Britain with the Liberals and it has happened here in Canada with the Conservatives.

Of course, that is a BBC view.

 

[rw4th]

I don't know if a society can realistically support more then 2 equal parties. In Canada we basically have 1 party (the Liberals), and several special interest groups (like the Bloc) and in countries where they have 3 or more parties, the governments are inherently unstable.

 

[dutchie]

Is it just me or are the Republicans becoming more and more 'right', and the Democrats more and more 'left'. There seems to be a ton of room between the two for another candidate/party to get a lot of support. I know there are significant differences between Canadians and Americans, but it seems to me that there would be support for a more 'centre' (or 'center' in the US, I suppose) party.

I don't know if a society can realistically support more then 2 equal parties. In Canada we basically have 1 party (the Liberals), and several special interest groups (like the Bloc)

Are you serious? What about the Tories? Are they a 'special interest group'? They have formed several Governments since Confederation.

The NDP as well. Although they will never form a Government (thank God), especially with the Greens around.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A system dominated by two parties tends to remain stable because both parties are constantly fighting for the centre.  If one party splits, it leaves the other party freer to move in a different direction of its own choosing.

The Republicans and Democrats always have a divided base.  Each party has centrist and extremist elements.  This is probably true of almost any major party - none has a monopoly on being a big tent.

When extremist elements in a party (in a two- or three-party system) gain too much influence the centrists swing (temporarily) over to another party.  This doesn't seem to persist through more than about two or three election cycles before the party regains its sanity and starts to ignore the extremists; it's as if the wobble has to become really pronounced before it is noticed and corrective action is taken.  Oddly, it seems to me that when a party is ousted from power it is stricken by the belief that it wasn't extreme enough for the base, whereas I would conclude it wasn't centrist enough for the population.

The secret to a stable democratic government (and country) is that the major parties cater to the interests of the middle class and resist the urge to buy votes.  Once the parties start catering to people who vote to increase their privileges and entitlements at someone else's expense, the game is over and it's time to reshuffle the deck.

 

[Infanteer]

The secret to a stable democratic government (and country) is that the major parties cater to the interests of the middle class and resist the urge to buy votes.  Once the parties start catering to people who vote to increase their privileges and entitlements at someone else's expense, the game is over and it's time to reshuffle the deck.

So you're saying that if the NDP ever gets elected to power, then we're f****d? 

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, I think the NDP will get into power federally only if we are already f****d.