Would you vote for Bush or Kerry?

[McFraggle]

It was so-so, and like Whatever said Bush kept avoiding giving a direct answer on the controversial topics and Kerry, for the most part, was alright. I think Kerry won the debate, 3 for 3, but I don't think it was exactly riveting television.

 

[Docnzhoss]

I just hope that all these polls I see (except the one in this forum) that still have Bush leading by a few points are wrong. I don't keep much stock in polls because in the end, all that matters is the vote. Still, I would hate to think that the majority of voters are still fooled into thinking that Bush is our shepherd and that he alone can protect us against terrorists. That's been his biggest platform throughout his campaign, and he's using scare tactics to try to keep us in check. I'm sick of it.

The other day, John Edwards said that if John Kerry gets elected, people like Christopher Reeve could walk again (talking about Kerry's support of stem cell research). It's a bogus statement. Kerry can single-handedly cure paralysis? Give me a break. However, back to what I've said before, politicians will lie, it's what they do. How many people died our would die because of Edwards' statement? None. Now how many have died since Bush told us that Saddam Hussein was in some part responsible for 9/11? Way too many. Bush can not single-handedly exterminate terrorism. What we need is to mend the severed ties with former allies (those we lost before, during and after the invasion of Iraq). If the world is on the same page concerning locating and aboloshing terrorism, it gives terrorists fewer places to plan their dirty work. Bush wants to think that he can do it alone, and now other countries that would be our allies see him as the problem. If Kerry gets elected, he will certainly have his work cut out for him convincing these countries that we are not a nation of money-loving, oil well-commandeering war mongerers.

I have nothing but love in my heart for men and women who are in Afghanistan and Iraq. I support them 100% and I truly hope for their safe return for their own sakes and their families. I do not, however, support Bush in any way and I hope he gets the boot in November.

Thanks for putting up with my rant. It's probably all jibberish because it's just jumbled in my brain, but I'm frustrated with our current government, and we definitely need a change.

 

[scarylarrywolf]

Don't worry, you've got plenty of company in your "ranting". And IMHO, it's getting old.

Firstly, the "going it alone" montra that keeps coming up is completely rediculous. Do we actually think of France as a deciding super-power? Hello -- we have Great Britain's power on our side, and now Russia is getting in on the global fight against Terror. Make no mistake: WE ARE NOT ALONE. By making this statement, one must by default discredit the efforts of the British forces and other allies helping us to spread freedom and liberty.

Secondly, how exactly DO we "Support Our Troops"? By discouraging them with statements about this war being a mistake? What purpose does that give them to be in Iraq? I just had a friend come back from basic training, and he admitted that it was difficult for him to keep up his morale. Saying this is a useless war is very unsupportive of our troops, and our allies' troops (incidentally, it also mocks our allies for joining us in the fight).

Thirdly, what we are doing in Afghanastan and Iraq is CULTIVATING allies and bringing those nations that have been controlled by and harboring terrorism to the same page as the rest of the world. Saying that this war is pointless is to say that the people of these countries are unimportant. If we haven't noticed, they're being liberated. Of course they'll have increased tension from local terrorists and rebels because they aren't used to democracy yet, but that is only for a time. They have a brighter future.

One other thing -- what is it I keep hearing about this "scare-tactic" business? Do we not consider terrorists a threat? Are we waving beheadings as a hoax? Will we REALLY "never forget" the broader meaning of September 11th? If these are to John Kerry "scare-tactics", then he is living in a world of fantasy and should have his head examined if he wants take the reins.

Polls don't mean anything until the one poll taken on November 2nd. I have to chuckle when I hear things about "I hope this poll stays the same", because I've heard it before when Kerry had a 2-point lead, and I could have just as easily said the same thing about Bush's upped stats just a week later. But the issues at hand are more meaningful than our statistics -- and, as exemplified by the above outline, I hope that we will all consider the implications of our positions and change them if it turns out that it is "the right thing to do".

And that's not a flip-flop!

 

[Docnzhoss]

Secondly, how exactly DO we "Support Our Troops"? By discouraging them with statements about this war being a mistake? What purpose does that give them to be in Iraq? I just had a friend come back from basic training, and he admitted that it was difficult for him to keep up his morale. Saying this is a useless war is very unsupportive of our troops, and our allies' troops (incidentally, it also mocks our allies for joining us in the fight).

Thirdly, what we are doing in Afghanastan and Iraq is CULTIVATING allies and bringing those nations that have been controlled by and harboring terrorism to the same page as the rest of the world. Saying that this war is pointless is to say that the people of these countries are unimportant. If we haven't noticed, they're being liberated. Of course they'll have increased tension from local terrorists and rebels because they aren't used to democracy yet, but that is only for a time. They have a brighter future.

And that's not a flip-flop!

Yeah, my morale would be low too if 1,000 + of my brothers in arms had been killed. My uncle and best friend have both served in Iraq (my uncle has since retired from the Army and my best friend is set to go back soon), and frankly, I've been going crazy with worry since this war began.

I would love to hear the opinions of some English citizens. Last I checked, most of that country was also opposed to the war in Iraq. Bush has Tony Blair's support, what about everyone else? I'm not being a smart-aleck here, I really am curious.
Also, if I were Russia, having just endured two atrocious terrorist attacks, I would be doing something to join the war on terror myself.
I'm not saying that a war on terrorism is unnecessary. All I'm saying is that Bush went about the whole thing all wrong. "Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction" "Saddam Hussein is a global threat". Hussein has been politically "over the hill" for years. He and his regime were a threat to their own people, not us (I am elated that Saddam is out of power and that he and his regime can do no more harm to anyone else, I'm just unhappy with the lies). Bush & Co. had their own personal agenda and they lied to us to get our support. They booted out UN weapons inspectors (who were saying that they needed time) because the inspectors weren't quick enough to find anything. After invading, what was our government saying regarding the location of the weapons? "These things take time." That's a great way to "cultivate" allies: completely undermine the UN then turn around and prove they were right all along.
We can only hope that good will come of all of this, and that Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world will have a brighter future when this is all said and done.

 

[MuppetsRule]

It's great to hear John Kerry talk about bringing in more allies to help in Iraq. I, along with everybody else, would love to see that. Problem is, he has yet to lay out his plans on how he is going to do that. Until then, it is just another empty promise from him! President Bush tried to bring in these same allies before the war. Didn't work because many of these so-called allies (France and Russia in particular are under investigation) were taking kickbacks from Hussein regarding the U.N. embargo. You don't suppose they opposed the war because they had so much to lose financially in the forms of kickbacks? How would John Kerry change that? Give them bigger kickbacks?(Probably by turning back the Bush tax cuts to the rich, which seems to be his answer to everything. How far does he think that is going to go. Do you honestly believe that is going to pay for everything he is promising and he won't need to raise taxes on you and I?)

As far as President Bush lying to the American public. The evidence and intelligence he used to base his decision on to go to war was the same information that many different country's intelligence agencies had and believed, including Russia, England, and the U.S. This is the same information John Kerry had when he first voted to support the war (and later changed his mind when it was politically popular) and the same information he would have had had he been president at the time and he was the one making the decision. This is the same man that voted to send our troops to Iraq and then voted against the support they need. This is the same man that voted AGAINST the first Gulf War. Remember, this is when Hussein had invaded another country! And we had the support of the U.N. and all these allies he would bring in this time and yet he voted against it. Had he been president at that time the world would have had to do it without the U.S. help and Hussein may still be in control of Kuwait. Is this really the man you want in charge of our country's security? The man who shows no leadership or is unable to make a tough decision, regardless of whether it is popular or not. I'm not willing to risk it.

 

[Censored]

We should never speak out against a war while it's taking place, under any circumstances. No matter how dishonest, misleading, or impractical a war may be, every American should support it without question and I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment that put a gag order on discouraging talk during times of war (for the good of national security, of course). Lyndon B. Johnson was right not to admit defeat or failure during Vietnam and continue to send in troops even if he knew they couldn't win. Soldiers may die for nothing, but if we support them, at least they'll think they died for something. Once a war breaks out, the truth is irrelevant. Support the war no matter what opinions you might have or what facts you might know.

 

[Censored]

By the way, is this war still going on or is it over?

 

[Beebers]

By the way, is this war still going on or is it over?

That was a "joke", right?

 

[Censored]

That was a joke, right?

Well, I don't know, I thought I remembered hearing something about our having won this war some time ago. Maybe I dreamed it.

 

[Banjo Matt]

Well, I don't know, I thought I remembered hearing something about our having won this war some time ago. Maybe I dreamed it.

However war has no sense anyway. War is horrible anytime and anyway.
Peace!