G.W. Bush is going to lose...

from PolMach Forums
note- This is a strict reply to the 'John Kerry is going to lose' forum. It seems that forum has gone out of hand, and shocked me.

George W. Bush is going to lose. He doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage sensing our president is racist. He has tormented the American people by doing virtually nothing to restore the economy, and produce more jobs. Instead he signed an overtime program preventing more pay for overtime. That sucks for the American people. He has sended many soldiers to Iraq where they didn't need to be. Neither Iraq or Sadaam Hussein proved an imminent threat to the United States. There was no reason to attack them. Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but we could've solved this by working with our allies, and working with the U.N. and NATO to solve this problem.

Anyone who votes for G.W. Bush in 2004 will regret it!
politics
15,344 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Neither Iraq or Sadaam Hussein proved an imminent threat to the United States.

No, but I wagered Saddam proved an imminent threat to the people of Iraq, which is why I supported it from the get go, without all the WMD, threat to US, etc.

"De Opresso Liber" is the motto of the Green Berets stands for "To Liberate the Oppressed", which should be the motto for the U.S.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.


Yes, and we all saw how helpful that was in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia, until the U.N.'s peacekeeping forces get more "balls" and "strength" it's a little help to ask them, as for NATO, it's not a NATO affair if it is not a direct attack on a NATO nation, Iraqi people are not a NATO nation.

Actually that would be a good poll to do, poll soldiers and ask them how many wanted to go, how many are glad they went, and how many would do it all over again, etc. Now why doesn't CNN, Time, Reuters, etc. do that kind of poll would be nice to have a U.S. Soldier's viewpoint from Iraq.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
...especially if they have oil...right ShoZan??? ! Just kidding!


Damn skippy, I need oil for my car engine, oil so I can have tires, oil so I can have gasoline, oil so I can have roads, etc. Even Electric engines use oil, alternative fuel is only an half-assed attempt for a solution, the problem is replacing oil completely so that nothing uses it, until that is done, alternative fuel arguments are moot (I think that's the right word)

Oh well we could have the government institute the Horse and Buggy Law, and what do you know the Amish are ahead of us on that front, they have been more enviromental than enviromentalist, HEHEHE.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Everyone gets fired up about the oil statement - the reality is that any industrialized nation needs the oil to prosper. Japan invaded the far east for oil, and the reality of the matter is folks, that the main reason we care at all about anything in the middle east is the "black gold". Republican or Democrat. This guy we have in there now just had the arrogance and ignorance of how people think over there to just go grab it. Mission NOT Accomplished George!
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Come on: Boswania? Rwanda? Somalia? Do they have the forces equivalent to Great Britan's, France's, Russia's, Germany's, or Spain's??? I bet not. We needed help from our strong allies--not the African countries who hate us in real life. We didn't need help from Palau, did we??

I don't think any soldier wants to be in Iraq now--deep in their hearts they want to serve their country, but they'd rather spend time with family, or friends.

ShoZan, they are many different alternatives to using tires or cars powered by oil. We can use metanol which is basically corn. When it isn't used, and wasted, there is no problem. That doesn't mean we need to suck all the oil out of Alaska or Iraq, does it??? That doesn't mean we have to drill through the Yellowstone (in which I'm hoping they never do)!!!!
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I meant the UN's actions in those nations, not those nations supporting us.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
ShoZan, they are many different alternatives to using tires or cars powered by oil.


But what is used as a lubricant, still what is used to pave roads, there are way to many things that use oil, if you replace the cars, that's only a mission half-accomplished, it has to be an across the board replacement of oil to stop our oil dependency, which the oil companies won't do until we run out of oil completely, who knows they probably have many plans in place for this, including sell whole new stuff so they get even more money for the transition, I don't see right now a complete replacement of oil in my lifetime, unless more drastic measures are taken, and I am 23.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.


Exactly who are you kidding? Sending UN and NATO? Haven't America tried that for like... 12 years! Can you seriously name one UN peacekeeping action without massive USA troop involvement anyway? In the last Gulf War, which is approved by UN, USA sent in more troops than we have today. What about Yugosolvia? General W. Clark was the NATO commander in chief that war. Exactly what was the % of USA soldiers in that peacekeeping action? Do you know? I challenege you to find me a good evidence that if we had used the UN or NATO route (as you suggested) that United States no longer need to send in "thousand of soldiers" -- as you put it. Stop making things up. America is the only nation on earth actually somewhat respect UN. I give you two examples. The only two war fought under UN context are: Korean War and the first Gulf War. There is not another country on earth fought their war under UN context.

Saddam has defied 14 UN resolutions for 12 years. Is that not enough? Real threat is not WMD is the intention to use WMD. Israel has nuclear weapons, so do India, England, France.... They are not a threat to US because they don't have the intention to use those nuclear weapons at us. Saddam has the capability to rebuild his WMD, he has used those weapons on his people, on Kurd, on Iran. Don't forget, the only national leader opnely celebrated 9/11 tradegy is Saddam.

By the way, someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is not racist... Racist has something to do with Race! Personally I support gay marriage, but please, and I mean please stop making things up. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Kerry believe in gay marriage. Bill Clinton is the one who encouraged and signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Kerry does not support gay marriage but support civil union. The exact position G. W. Bush is taking. The only difference is that Kerry believes marriage is a state right issue, whereas Bush believe it is a federal matter. So exactly whysomeone believe in federal is more racist?

Neither A. Lincoln nor Robert E. Lee believes in slavery, but one believe in the union, the other believe in states? Who is more racist according to you?
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
It's still possible that Bush could lose. The point gap will probably close quite a bit once the post-RNC euphoria wears off and people are less wowed by talk of "strength" and "growth". Then, the gap will hopefully close more when people see the sort of double-talk, half-truths, and glaring omissions in the president's speech/plan. His speech will carry less weight once people take note of the first term with a national job loss since Hoover, the raising of Medicare costs by 17% a day after the president said he was protecting seniors, and a whole host of other damning issues for Bush. The rest will be up to Kerry who is still talking about Vietnam. Contrary to popular belief, he does have a plan for the country, but he needs to get it out more. If he can do that, he'll win since very few people really have any reason to vote for Bush. But even if Bush wins, I think Congress will come under Democratic control.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Keep on dreaming Mr. Alex. Exactly what is Kerry's Iraq Plan since you seem to understand his plan. His plan has changed from condemning the war to supporting the war. His plan is that he supported the first gulf war and disapproving the second (current) Iraq war. But here is the catch, his congressional votes are opposite to what he is saying now. Can you tell me why he vote against the first gulf war but really support it -- as he is repeatly saying now.

I hate to tell you this, but most people has less to vote for Kerry? Why do I say that because Democrats are less excited about Kerry than Republicans are excited about Bush -- many national poll has shown that result.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
The only two war fought under UN context are: Korean War and the first Gulf War. There is not another country on earth fought their war under UN context.


Though don't forget the contributions of the British Soldiers and Australian Soldiers, you do them a disservice if you forget that where ever the U.S. goes those two along with support from Japan is sure to follow, because we are tight like that, like a Democratic Posse.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
It's still possible that Bush could lose. The point gap will probably close quite a bit once the post-RNC euphoria wears off and people are less wowed by talk of "strength" and "growth".


It will come down to the debate where instead of speaking of "I Have a plan" etc. they will have to get down to the brass tacks and tell people the specfics, and hopefully people don't buy into the glittering generalites from both Candidates.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Ok, my apology. I don't mean to say allies are not important. All I said (I am correct still) is that going through UN or NATO route would not save us from sending thousand and really hundreds of thousand of troops -- I was arguing with Deanic who thought if we got support from the French and German, we don't need to send in thousand of troops.

But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.


I do understand the British and Polish troops contribute the most in today Iraq. Yet, the reality is that with or without these allies, Americans still have to send in a massive troop.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Well when you compare the sizes of America's Military to Britain and Australia, which Japan can't count because there force is for Self-Defense only if they had a standing military they would send them, it is only common sense we send the most, we got the best gear, the best toys, and the best boys to send to do the job (though the SAS and the Australian SF are good too) and yeah the Polish were a surprise with me, and even Germany is sending Wehrmacht (I think that's right) troops to train Iraqis, but always when it comes to the big butt kicking Americans will outnumber allied forces because of our larger military, unless the Red Army gets involved, or if by total miracle, China's Army gives us support than they would probably send the most, since THEY are the largest military force period, and air force, and navy. hehehe Just don't forget our jumping and battle buddies, who when it comes down to it stick with us through thick and thin, because we bonded with the two World Wars, and bond that will never break.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top


Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but we could've solved this by working with our allies, and working with the U.N. and NATO to solve this problem.


Deaniac,
Which allies specifically should we have "worked" with that we had not already made numerous attempts with? Germany, France, and Russia were already so deep into Saddam's pockets that they would never support the enforcement of the many resolutions they signed on to in the UN. Was there ever going to be a solution to the cat and mouse game Saddam was playing with the US and those useless resolutions? After 12 years of enforcing no-fly zones and failed UN inspections, were we any closer to his compliance then when he first made his false promises at the end of Gulf War I? The simple answer is NO. Saddam thought that he could use the UN as a buffer to further delay, if not totally avoid, EVER having to come clean. Germany, France, and Russia thought they could block any attemp by the US to force Saddam to comply with the UN's own resolutions and keep the billions in oil and weapons contracts with Saddam. They were both wrong.

pk65........OHHH PLEASE
the oil conspiracy theory is old and tired.
Lets say for a second that you are correct and oil is the only reason that we even considered nailing saddam. In Gulf War I we blasted Saddam out of Kuwait and had him on the ropes. He was a sitting duck and our troops could have rolled right over his oil fields with ease if that was all we wanted. Why didn't we? It was ours for the taking and according to you thats the main reason we care about anything in the middle east. As far as Japan is concerned, yes they used the oil (and all the other resources) from the territories they conquered. Their main goal was to acquire as much land mass as possible - that was not already under Nazi control. Making it into an oil quest is rather simplistic.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Keep on dreaming Mr. Alex. Exactly what is Kerry's Iraq Plan since you seem to understand his plan. His plan has changed from condemning the war to supporting the war. His plan is that he supported the first gulf war and disapproving the second (current) Iraq war. But here is the catch, his congressional votes are opposite to what he is saying now. Can you tell me why he vote against the first gulf war but really support it -- as he is repeatly saying now.

I hate to tell you this, but most people has less to vote for Kerry? Why do I say that because Democrats are less excited about Kerry than Republicans are excited about Bush -- many national poll has shown that result

Yea, his view changed, like I think it changed for a lot of Americans when the weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq weren't. It changed when the President's plan of attack looked less and less planned out. Talking about plans, this administration never planned for the insurgents and militant rebel groups that are currently attacking our troops. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, and once Saddam and his regime were gone, all Iraqis were to embrace us with open arms. Whoops.

Talking about plans, Bush also made no plans to discuss terrorism pre-9/11. Richard Clarke and his team kept trying to tell him what was up, but the president made no plans.

And there was certainly no plan for managing the budget. That's a mess that could haunt generations to come.

I agree with you that people aren't all that excited about Kerry. That's something that he really needs to address. But for myself, the fact that this administration has had such poor planning is enough for Kerry to get my vote. But that won't be enough for most, and Kerry does need to energize his base ASAP.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?


Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets. I have to admit that my own pre 9/11 complacency would have me against any preemptive actions. I am thankful that today I am no longer foolish enough to think that there is an invisible shield protecting us or that the UN has any interest in protecting our national security. I am thankful that Bush has wised up as well. I do respect your opinion to the contrary though.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?


Also in 2000 was the World Trade Centers still standing, things change.

Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets. I have to admit that my own pre 9/11 complacency would have me against any preemptive actions. I am thankful that today I am no longer foolish enough to think that there is an invisible shield protecting us or that the UN has any interest in protecting our national security. I am thankful that Bush has wised up as well. I do respect your opinion to the contrary though.


And having an opinion is the first step to thinking through a situation, when you don't think you get half-informed or mis-informed opinions which is nothing more than a parrot repeating, so to be debating the topic is always something good.

What if Albert Gore was president, I think all the actions would have still been taken, just glad Bush hasn't yanked stake and left Iraq high and dry just because it required a little nation-building, do the fact that heck most the nation was in shambles before a single bomb was dropped. As for nation building in general IT IS the American way to rebuild nations we have defeated to prevent a place like Post World War 1 Germany from ever happening again.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
It is easy to say than done -- Kerry to energies his base. I perosnally don't know what I would do if I am him. His orignal campaign tactic is to go after Bush's strength -- at least what voter considered as Bush strength, which are national security, war on terror. Now, doens't matter if you and I believe those are Bush's true strengths, those are certianly what most american believe. I think Bush has about 15 points ahead Kerry. So the original campaign strategy is to even the level of plain field. Once voters believe Kerry is as good as Bush in handling the war on terror (he doens't even have to win over Bush), Kerry will win the election because most voters already considered he is better than Bush at the domestic issue, like overall economcy, health care and eduction.

Unfortunely, as you know, Kerry campaign strategy didn't work. People still think Bush is stronger at foreign policy. Not only they think Bush is stronger. Now more American than before believe the foreign policy and war on terror is more important than economy, education and health care because both candidates focus on it so much. Effectly Kerry's team did Bush a favor. Objectively I don't know what can Kerry do. I don't see how he can persude voters he is a better commander-in-chief. At the same time, it is a bit late for him to go back and focus on economy because he, himself, made a big deal about national security in the first place. Words I heard from the Kerry campaign team is that they are going to focus back on economy, but in my opinion, it is too late.

Mr. Alex. It is one thing to argue Bush doesn't have the best plan. It is another thing that Kerry does have a position. I mean... at least one has to deicde on something before you can execute a plan. You may think Bush has a bad plan by inviting Iraq, but at least you cannot doubt the intention for the invarsion. Kerry... do you honesty know if he was the president, he would or would not invite Iraq. I seriously don't know. Sometime, it seems he is for the invarsion but not the exact plan, (that is he will something slight different than Bush), but sometime he seems like he is not at all into the invarsion at all.

To answer your comment about Dick Clark. I won't take his words too seriously because something doesn't add up. For example, Clark has repeatly said during the Clinton adminstration Osama Bin Laden was always on the top of the list, not other issues. But that cannot be true, as Bob Kerrey (a demcrat senator) nicely pointed out during the congressional hearing that why didn't we attack or do something about bin Laden if we truely believe it is the "most threatening" factor to our country. Surely Clinton would have dealth with bin Laden if he is the "most threathen" issue. In fact we have several terriost attacks by bin Laden prior to 9/11 and there is no documentation prove that the Clinton adminstration took it as the "most threathening" issue. Don't forget that all of the 9/11 hickjackets are already in this country way before Bush was president. They stayed from 2 - 5 years prior to the attack. And even Dick Clark himself said there nothing truely can be done once they entered the country. So even if you believe Dick Clark... what he truely said is that Bush didn't really put bin Laden as the most theatening issue -- which I do agree with him, but so is Clinton. He personally and many others have testified that it is very unlikly prevent 9/11 after the terriosts have established terriost cells here for years. I believe that is the conclusion from the 9/11 hearing as well.
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
By the way, I understand how you were defending Kerry changed his position on the Iraq War. Through I disagree with his change, I can somewhat understand. What I don't understand is that why he voted against the first Gulf War (Desert Storm), and now say he is for the war and that is the way a war should be fought. As the commander-in-chief, he doesn't have the luxary for having a "hind-sight". You dealt with your cards. If Senator Kerry voted for the Iraq War because the information he had persude him so, then he cannot argue Bush made a mistake going into the war because Bush made the same judgement he made. Everyone believe Saddam had weapon of mass destruction. Not just US intellgence, so does Isarel, Britain, even UN and Russia. Putin has recently told press that his intelligence believe Saddam was planning his own attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

The guy had the weapons and used the weapons before the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, he didn't let the UN inspector look at them, and then he kicked eveyone out 1998. Then he told people that he has destoryed them on his own. As the president of United States, you can make two mistakes. You either believe Saddam or don't. There isn't a "maybe" here. One mistake is to attack Saddam and he may very well destoryed his own stockpile (but somehow he likes to destoryed them secretly and not in front of the UN inspectors). Or you can make the other mistake which is to believe Saddam and run the risk that he may use those weapons upon US soil. Don't forget. Saddam hates US. Seriously hates US. Saddam is the only national leader openly supported the result of 9/11 on his national TV. I am not arguing if he actually helped the terriosts. All I am saying is that he go on his TV and praised the terriosts. Doesn't that define his stance? Doesn't that possibly mean he might do the same thing given the chance.

As a national leader, you have to take chance because you don't have luxary to wait. I personally don't understand how people can critized Bush adminstration didn't "connect the dots" prior to 9/11, and at the same time argue the adminstration doesn't have "factual evidents" to attack Iraq. Frankly, "connecting dots" is about "guessing". Let's time travel back prior to 9/11, no one believe Al Quada was a bigger threat than Saddam. After September 11, and before the Iraq invarsion, if we were to use the same threshold to attack Al Quada to prevent terriost attack, then we surely will attack Iraq. Both factions hate United States. Both factions have attacked United State personal or military outside of United States. Only Saddam has WMD and Al Quada doesn't.

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets.


Good point, but hasn't his reason for the war changed? The primary reason being because he was a threat and now it was because the administration wanted to liberate Iraq. Isn't the rhetoric that Iraq is now free insignificant because that was not the reason for going in to Iraq?
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
The President never changes his reason for going into the war. He stated repeatly in the GOP convention and previous interviews that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was a threat to his people and neighbors. In fact, I believe the democrats are still critizing him for not changing his stance. You can't attack the same man on both sides. You can't critize him for btoh changing and not changing his view, which one is it? The reason going into Iraq has not changed.

The reason to STAY in Iraq is always about regime change. He has always said we are going to stay to "free" or "regime change" the Iraqians, just like what we are doing in Afghan. I don't think he ever said we will simply go in Iraq destory Saddam's weapons and leave. Everyone know he want the military to stay for some time. Bush is refocusing from the reason to go to war to the reason to stay, which is about liberating Iraq. The argument is that if you simply beat up the terriost and leave, then you will never solve the real problem. You have to stay and reshape the political atomsphere in the regime, much like what we did in German and Japan. I believe Bush must have mention his vision tens times by now. So I don't think it is "insignificant to mention Iraq is free now and that we cannot leave now. Look, we are no longer at the invarsion mode, we are in the occupsion stage. I expect him to talk about Iraq is free now, and I will be expecting him to update me about the transformation progress. This is not the same as changing his reason to go to war.