Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The polarization of America- War version.

Tomservo · 03-15-2004, 02:05 PM

With all the Iraq and Vietnam talk flying around, I wanted to bring the arguments together in an intelligent(?) way. Seems to me that half of America thinks John Kerry is a poor choice, the other half thinks Bush is a poor choice, but pretty much ALL of us have an opinion on war.

The polarization that results is astounding- excuses flying every which way in regards to what's allowed and what's not.

In this corner, we have George Bush, who certainly did what he could to avoid a war he apparently had no actual opinion on. He trained as a soldier and learned to be a pilot, certainly not an easy task, before bailing on the military to become a part-time politician and party kid. He then succeeded at a very school before becoming a failed businessman. After spending some time as the owner of a dreadfully bad baseball team, Bush wandered into government and did quite well, when compared to his baseball team, winning as both governor of Texas and President of the USA. After a tremendous failure (9/11) occured on his watch, he stiffened his resolve and chose to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, the country most responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Nonetheless, the successful sweep of Iraq removed a man considered by most of the world to be a terrible and violent leader. Many Americans feel Bush's tough leadership and determination to stamp out "terra" at all costs is a positive- these folks believe we're at constant risk of attack, and are willing to be at constant war to prevent this. Additionally, many American businessmen and corporations support these same ideas. They will vote for George Bush.

On the other hand, we have John Kerry, a man who has consistently shown his desire to achieve greater political office, a direct opposite opinion of Bush, who does not appear to truly "desire" to be leader of the free world, he just sort of wandered into it. (This is not meant as a bash of GWB, just a comparison of their styles) Kerry also attempted to avoid Vietnam, although his reasons seem to have been political. When he could not, he was willing to go to battle, to stand for himself, and to kill in name of God and country. He was unquestionably unhappy with this, and returned to the USA full of vim and vigor, nearly and possibly radical in his approach. Kerry's desires to improve his political standing were apparent and obvious, and he used his considerable intellect to further himself in that area, planting himself firmly as a liberal. Post 9/11, Kerry did as most of America's leaders did, following Bush's plans to eliminate threats and eventually invade Iraq. Since, he's backed away from his vote for the war. Is this due to his supporters, peaceniks that they are, or does he truly believe the war has gone awry? Kerry's history suggests that he is willing to fight a war, then stand up against its principles and negatives, but this would be too much benefit of the doubt, so we'll assume he's waffling. Many Americans join Kerry in this waffle, however, and feel that continued preemptive war will only result in more terrorism and continual war, even as they supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein. These folks will vote for Kerry.

In other words, the folks who believe we're all gonna die any day now will vote for Bush to protect them, even though 9/11 happened while he was protecting them. The folks who believe America is trying to become "America the All Powerful" will vote for John Kerry to return us to a humbler state, even though his rise into power was forced largely by his ego, or lack of humility.

Additionally, those who claim Kerry doesn't have the international chops to handle the job are the same folks who voted for Bush, who had (reportedly) never left the USA of his own volition prior to his presidential run... and those who claim Bush is a power-grabber who stole the last election will support someone who would lie to his grandmother for a vote, likely.

I did not support the war in Iraq, so I apologize if this comes off as biased towards the peaceniks. I ask every respondant to this to do me one favor- if you make an argument against the other guy (Kerry's hair is ugly!), please also add an honest comment about your guy (Bush can't pronounce nuclear!).

The only way to seperate ourselves from partisanship is to be honest about those we support instinctively. Yes?

03-15-2004, 02:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	The polarization of America- War version. With all the Iraq and Vietnam talk flying around, I wanted to bring the arguments together in an intelligent(?) way. Seems to me that half of America thinks John Kerry is a poor choice, the other half thinks Bush is a poor choice, but pretty much ALL of us have an opinion on war. The polarization that results is astounding- excuses flying every which way in regards to what's allowed and what's not. In this corner, we have George Bush, who certainly did what he could to avoid a war he apparently had no actual opinion on. He trained as a soldier and learned to be a pilot, certainly not an easy task, before bailing on the military to become a part-time politician and party kid. He then succeeded at a very school before becoming a failed businessman. After spending some time as the owner of a dreadfully bad baseball team, Bush wandered into government and did quite well, when compared to his baseball team, winning as both governor of Texas and President of the USA. After a tremendous failure (9/11) occured on his watch, he stiffened his resolve and chose to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, the country most responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Nonetheless, the successful sweep of Iraq removed a man considered by most of the world to be a terrible and violent leader. Many Americans feel Bush's tough leadership and determination to stamp out "terra" at all costs is a positive- these folks believe we're at constant risk of attack, and are willing to be at constant war to prevent this. Additionally, many American businessmen and corporations support these same ideas. They will vote for George Bush. On the other hand, we have John Kerry, a man who has consistently shown his desire to achieve greater political office, a direct opposite opinion of Bush, who does not appear to truly "desire" to be leader of the free world, he just sort of wandered into it. (This is not meant as a bash of GWB, just a comparison of their styles) Kerry also attempted to avoid Vietnam, although his reasons seem to have been political. When he could not, he was willing to go to battle, to stand for himself, and to kill in name of God and country. He was unquestionably unhappy with this, and returned to the USA full of vim and vigor, nearly and possibly radical in his approach. Kerry's desires to improve his political standing were apparent and obvious, and he used his considerable intellect to further himself in that area, planting himself firmly as a liberal. Post 9/11, Kerry did as most of America's leaders did, following Bush's plans to eliminate threats and eventually invade Iraq. Since, he's backed away from his vote for the war. Is this due to his supporters, peaceniks that they are, or does he truly believe the war has gone awry? Kerry's history suggests that he is willing to fight a war, then stand up against its principles and negatives, but this would be too much benefit of the doubt, so we'll assume he's waffling. Many Americans join Kerry in this waffle, however, and feel that continued preemptive war will only result in more terrorism and continual war, even as they supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein. These folks will vote for Kerry. In other words, the folks who believe we're all gonna die any day now will vote for Bush to protect them, even though 9/11 happened while he was protecting them. The folks who believe America is trying to become "America the All Powerful" will vote for John Kerry to return us to a humbler state, even though his rise into power was forced largely by his ego, or lack of humility. Additionally, those who claim Kerry doesn't have the international chops to handle the job are the same folks who voted for Bush, who had (reportedly) never left the USA of his own volition prior to his presidential run... and those who claim Bush is a power-grabber who stole the last election will support someone who would lie to his grandmother for a vote, likely. I did not support the war in Iraq, so I apologize if this comes off as biased towards the peaceniks. I ask every respondant to this to do me one favor- if you make an argument against the other guy (Kerry's hair is ugly!), please also add an honest comment about your guy (Bush can't pronounce nuclear!). The only way to seperate ourselves from partisanship is to be honest about those we support instinctively. Yes?