How I came to a conclusion on who to vote for...
 

Objective Thoughts:

Wake up America. I don't give a shit who endorses who. Everyone in government can be bought. Just because so-and-so important general, veteran or congressman says Candidate A would make a better president than Candidate B means absolutely NOTHING to me.

I've been very solid in my decision on who to vote on for over a year now. It's simply a matter of weighing the actions of our country and deciding if I want to continue on this path or not.

Subjective Thoughts:

I used to not really like Bill Maher, but recently he's been really reading my mind. He's got his show on HBO and aside from it being an absolutely hilarious conservative-bashing exhibition of PURE RATIONAL LOGIC, it's also a great news source. Bill tries his best to represent conservative points of view with guests, and he makes sure to bash both parties equally, but he speaks complete utter truth. This isn't me following him as if he is gospel, this is his and my thoughts syncing up exactly.

Wake up America. We are alone in the world. George W Bush has made our country despicable in the eyes of others. 103 Olympic medals don't win anyone's favor when it comes to our foreign policy. Wake the fuck up!

Wake up America. We need allies in today's world. It doesn't matter if we're the most advanced and heavily armed nation, all we're doing is pissing other countries off. Everyone is shaking their head, looking at us through the spaces between their fingers and muttering, "Geez, they really fucked up." When will people realize that our country is not doing was well as the fucking government is telling us? Wake the fuck up!

Also, a word to all who enjoy this website's fine array of erotica, it's open and free mindset regarding sex, it's vast selection of discussions and it's friendly staff: The fundamentalist lobbyists that control the decisions that our government is currently making with their pocketbooks want nothing more than to end all of this. George W Bush may be the guy who you'd rather sit down and have a beer with, but are you EVER going to sit down and have a beer with him? He's a frat boy - a partier. Everything he ever wanted in life has been handed to him on a silver platter. Now he lets the highest bidder make decisions for him. He sounds like a demagog on the podium, lifelessly reciting words that fundies write for him. His market is the flesh-hating bible-thumbing army of repression. If you let him win... all of this could be gone.

I don't like professional politicians.

I don't vote for them. I've done a write in vote for the President since 1988 which was my first year of voting for a POTUS. This year will be no different.

People tell me I'm wasting my vote and to "vote of the lesser of two evils." I say bollocks to that then I still voted for evil.

I completely agree with Halx on this issue.

In the past, I have completely agreed with Cynthetiq's reasoning - but this election is quite different.

This election is not between Bush and Kerry - it is between Bush and Not Bush. Kerry and Bush are essentially the same (and in that regard they are very much different than most people in this country).

But the most important difference between the two is their symbolism connected to the vast differences in the beliefs of the people that support each of them. The most ardent Bush supporter is nothing like the most ardent Kerry supporter. The most ardent Bush supporter believes we are doing the right thing - the most ardent Kerry supporter believes we are doing the wrong thing.

That is the key element of this election. It is not a Bush or Kerry election, it is a Bush or not-Bush election. If Bush wins, America stands up for the last 4 years. If Kerry wins, America does not stand up for the last 4 years.

Any other choice, in this election, is useless.

My wife and I are going to see Bill Maher here in town on 9/11. Now that ought to be interesting....

halx,

couldn't disagree with you more about bill maher. i thought you were being sarcastic the first time i read it. you're free to do what you want, but a vote based on his analysis is, i think, a vote poorly cast.

i have had this exact thought numerous times -- this web site represent much of what the christian right led GOP would like to end. If you vote for sex hating candidates with your left hand well jerking off to free boobies with your right you should feel the tingle prick of hypocrisy.

*edited for clarity

Well, you obviously need to read it a third time.

" This isn't me following him as if he is gospel, this is his and my thoughts syncing up exactly." [emphasis added]


Mr Mephisto

Bill Maher loves Ann Coulter.

How much do you like him now?

point taken. i intended to convey that if my thoughts were like bill maher's, then i'd be wary of their logical integrity. bill maher is many things, an accomplished entertainer among other things, but i do not consider him a person who possesses sound logic. that isn't because i don't often agree with him, just that his logic often seems flawed.

but you're right, didn't take halx's post correctly. thanks for the heads up.

Howard Stern will be off the air within a year if Bush wins.

All that needs to be said is Bush is the most hated president of my generation, and the Democrats still don't have a candidate who can beat him. So what's that say about our politicians? Bush will win the election because Kerry is a total pussy with no agenda, among other things. And Bill Maher is a brainless bitch. Maybe if he'd stop smoking weed a rational thought might actually pour out of his head.

There are many things I don't like about Bush, but I don't like anything about Kerry.

Many awake Americans will be voting to reelect the President - those who understand that the people of the world still see America as the Land of the Free and the Land of Opportunity - bar none; those who understand that geo-political alliances are based on self-interest and that our allies will continue to participate as America's allies; those who realize that web sites such as this one have thrived during the current administration and will continue to thrive; those who do not confuse rhetorical and political positioning and power-brokering with the ongoing evolution of culture, and so forth.

The fair and balanced views here on this site epitomize what is best about the opportunity for open expression and dialog. Agreeing to disagree, maintaining mutual respect across our philosophical and political positions is what we do very well here.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond.

Ok, I gotta defend Bill a little bit. I think he's changed a bit because I used to think he was a total complete idiot. Now, I've been watching his NEW show.. have you? I really think he's turned a corner and is now on the right track.

Art, as a fan of America, I gotta disagree with you on an ethical level. The USA under Bush's direction is a big giant bully. People may still be allies with us and suck up to us, but that doesn't mean they like us. I want to be liked. I want people to say, "Hey, you're from America? I LOVE that country!" Nobody is gonna be saying those words as long as GWB maintains his shoot-first-ask-later mentality.

Also, it's not the destination, but the progression. The fact that the TFP is alive says nothing good or bad about what's going on. However, if you look at what is happening outside of the TFP (censorship galore) you begin to realize that eventually we will be next. I have no desire to stand around to see if you're right about it.

to be fair i've not seen bill maher since his "politically incorrect" days. i disagreed with maher fundamentally on his interpretation of current events and the format of his show was frustrating for me to watch. me and the roomie just got digital cable with the ol' home box office package, maybe i'll give his new show a try.

i want to be from the country that everyone loves also. believe me, i'm an avid backpack traveler... i have felt the brunt of anti-american sentiment firsthand. but i think that although the opinions of the world community are important, we must do what we believe is right before we cater to their preferences. that is to say, i value international opinion... but i do not judge the justice of our actions completely by that measure alone. someone said that the formula for failure is to try to please everyone... i think that statement has some relevance here.

art: it sounds little like you're saying that we should trust that things will be fine despite evidence to the contrary. the president professes to be anti-pornography and anti-homosexual, his party has repeatedly tried to censor the internet (mostly sites like this that provide access to pornography) -- why should we believe that "sites such as this one... will continue to thrive" when the official position of the GOP is counter to that belief?

while today's GOP isn't the same as the Reagan GOP days, there was plenty of fervor to ban Huslter, Penthouse, and other magazines like it. They endured because of the checks and balances.

I'm of the opinion that on either side, not matter what, it's going to say that it's not forever. The 20's were very promiscuous and profitable and then the 50's it was very conservative. In the scope of the big picture, I'm not worried.

And as a manager of 15 people I learned very quickly that I wasn't going to appease all 15 people. I'm going to piss off and upset some because I had to be more concerned about getting something done, as opposed to being popular and liked.

The USA under anybody's direction is a "big giant bully" in the eyes of most who aren't American. We will assume this role as long as we are in the position we have been for the last 50 years, and bet your ass as much complaining as there is outside of our country - none of them would have it differently.

As a 12-15 year old in Germany from '85-'88, I can tell you from personal experience Europe's attitude wasn't then "Oh you're from America, I LOVE that country." In the course of 1 waking day i could travel through four different cultures (France, Belgium, Lichtenschtien, Germany) and go from being treated like a Leper (France in a particular - they're reputation precedes them, they'll never like us), to being treated like a king. Fact is, we are and never will be "just Americans". I felt this as a 12 year old. Adults treating ME, at 12, like i either personally liberated them or have come to Europe to personally kill their leaders and run their country.

One thing is for sure however, those that respected us were almost exclusively the older generation. The younger generation of Europeans want to hate us. Iraq, Bush, etc have nothing to do with it. We are who we are and we play the role we play. Our purpose hasn't changed in 50 years. We protect the world, and the world would have it no other way.

Although I despise Bush as well, most of the population will never say that about America whether he is in office or not. Dubya is just making it much easier for them to hate America though.

I can't see how anyone could say that Iraq, Bush, etc have nothing to do with current world opinion of the U.S.

As for our purpose not changing in 50 years, it seems to me it has drastically changed. During that time we dealt with a Cold War where each side manipulated other parts of the world to antagonize the other side. This has all changed - now we are dealing with parts of the world that we manipulated coming back to bite us. To express either disbelief or shock at this rather significant change is a myopic view. We do not protect the world - we protect ourselves, and in the process we attempt to bend the world to our concept of civility, justice, righteousness and morality.

..and why do you think that Rdr? Why do you think most of the population will never say that about America?

It's just that you're post seems to insinuate it's something inherant about who/what we are. I'd like you to elaborate. If it's not the current President, what is it inherantly about America that these people will never have respect for?

Either some of you don't remember a few years ago or I'm crazy, but I remember that there was strong anti-US sentiment from the rest of the world back in the Clinton days. The people who hate us now are those that have hated us for decades. The reason is almost unimportant. They will use any excuse to hate America. So be it. I imagine USA haters will still hate us if Kerry gets elected. I don't think voting so other countries will "like" us is important.

From personal experience, the younger generation of Europeans "hated" America for nothing more than the political role we play. A hate that was evident as a 12 year old almost 20 years ago. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that we were loved up untill the Iraq war. The current situation has provided a catalyst for ligitimacy to their hatred that is motivated by politcal envy. Granted there is alot more to it, but in a nutshell...they hate us as a political power, and the more power we excert, it would make sense the more antagonistic they will feel. Their feeling's about America are not limited to Bush (or whoever the current president), they are motivated by years of politcal envy.

As for your other point, sure we manipulated parts of the world for what we believed to be the greater good, and sure things have come back to bite us in the ass. But are you suggesting that because of actions we took in the past for reasons that were historically relevant, that we alleviated our responsibilites to solve the problems that arise in the future. I would think we are even more so for that very fact.

I'm trying to think back to ANY president that was able to convince the rest of the world that we were good and loved by the world. I don't see it at all, especially since pre-WWI we were pretty isolationistic.

matthew, if you really think that the current opinion of America in Europe is no different from that held only a few years ago, then you are sorely mistaken.

As one of the contemporaneous "young Europeans" you refer to, I can assure you that the world's opinion of the USA is measurably WORSE now than it has ever been.

I myself spend hours defending America with my friends. I keep telling them "It's not the country, it's the current Administration you should be angry with." Unfortunately not many of them agree and they now have a strong distaste for the country as a whole. This is a shame, for the world would be a much worse place without America. But even I (who believes in the inherent goodwill and positive nature of the US) think that the world would be a better place with GWB gone.

The man has done a disservice to your country (in my opinion), has made several fundamental mistakes and is a driving force for dissention and knee-jerk reactionism in American politics. How many Americans believe Hussein was directly (or even indirectly) responsible for 9/11? A great deal. And that is a lie. He brought your country to war on the basis of falsehoods and continues to do harm around the world. America (not Bush) is a force for good and I believe it will outlast and hopefully outgrow the harm he has done it. Even if it takes another four years to get rid of him... But harm it he has and the sooner he is out of the White House the better.

It's not even just the war in Iraq. It's about environmentalism, fundamentalism (yes, ]Christian fundamentalism), inequitable social policies, "big business" politics, unilateralism, trade... the list goes on and on.

I love America, as much as a typical, liberal minded non-American can, but I have a stong distate and dislike (verging on fear and hatred) of Bush and his cronies.

And THAT my friend is what is worrying. If your friends begin to dislike you, then you must be doing something wrong...


Mr Mephisto

I think it goes far beyond politics. It is a cultural issue. America is the melting pot - we take in cultures and merge them out of existence - and as our exportation of our "culture" increases, the backlash from other cultures is amplified. As for the political aspect, my view is that we are perceived as hypocrites. We claim that we strive for freedom and liberty and the "greater good" for the whole planet - but the view is that we strive for dominance and control and ownership of the entire planet. This is accurately summed up by the actions of our corporations and the many statements by Americans, for example, the denuciation of the U.N. If it were true that we desired freedom and not control, our first and foremost priority would be ensuring the effectiveness of the U.N., not subverting it when it won't do what we want. The U.N. is the closest thing the world has to planet-wide democracy, by definition, America cannot be a replacement for it.

That also happens to be a view that I hold.
I'm suggesting that manipulation is not the correct course - particularly if you intend to claim a "greater good" or moral superiority. The problems that arise in the future are a direct result of the actions we have taken in the past - and as long as we deny that and continue along the same course, we are in no position to "solve" the problems of the future.

Mephisto,

I had to defend America and american lifestyle when I was living in Singapore in 89. Lots of the countries in SE Asia already hated the Americans. I distinctly recall PM Lee Quan Yew saying that he was going to take American assistance and corporations for now and then when the Americans turn their backs they won't know what hit them. There are plenty of free trade agreements and American companies with major offices and factories in that area.

Most of the world has a love/hate relationship with the US, they love to hate us.

I don’t know if you haven't noticed, but America has been hated for quite some time now. Be it what reason, whether ridiculous or valid, it is not going to change anytime in the near future. Some people envy USA for their freedom and therefore hate them, some hate them for the way they abuse they’re power and sadly but truly get away with it. Oh, don’t forget the unnecessary wars either, that’s factors in the strong hatred.

Well, the original poster referred to Europe, but this doesn't change anything. I can distinctly remember US President Reagan saying "the bombing starts in 10 minutes" (off microphone, but picked up none the less), but that doesn't mean many people actually believed him. There is also the issue of playing to your domestic audience. Singapore could not exist without the US, so comments like that are just plain hot air.

My point is that it is an undeniable fact that America's reputation has suffered greatly due to Bush's policies. Not even Neocons can argue against that. They may say they don't care, or try to fool the foolish into believing "the world is a safer place now" (HAH!!), but every sound minded person knows that America is no longer the country at which the majority of the world look with admiration.

That's a vast over-simplification and someone of your intelligence should know that. In fact, I'm just going to assume it was a throw-away "sound bite".


Mr Mephisto

Flawed Logic is subjective to personal interpretation of what constitutes fact. I find the Logic of Mr. Maher to be relatively accurate, and enjoy the diversity of his ever changing panel of guest commentators.

There are many vast oversimplifications here. Each poster has posted some brief sentences of opinion or "sound bites" without offering reams of documentation in support. That's reasonable. These are our opinions. The fact that every one of us has posted vast oversimplifications here does not reflect on our intelligence.

Mephisto, yes it is a gross oversimplification, but it does seem to me to be what I witness from the masses. I don't encounter it in the individuals I meet in my travels. I have yet to meet one person that doesn't have some negative opinions on the administration. I don't wear my politics on my sleeve. I have coworkers depending on which table I sit for lunch bash the republicans or democrats. I just sit and listen.

I do find it as ironic as the next person that most people even those living here as resident aliens have hateful viewpoints towards the administration of the US, but still love the individual people that come from it. They love the land finding the parks and geography beautiful, but hate the government that protects and upkeeps those lands.

i am most familiar with france, so i'll talk about my experience living there for a few years...

one example among many many possible: during the first gulf war, i was living in paris and was interested in how the antiwar movement was mobilizing, so i attend lots of meetings, demos, etc.. the slogans at demos for example, were often extremely harsh toward the administration--the state department had apparently reacted to this kind of thing and had issued warnings at the time that americans should stay away stay away and not look "too american" if they were out and about---on the first day of the war i found myself around bastille wearing some kind of university sweatshirt (errors in carry on packing came pack to haunt me when my luggage took a little seperate vacation--after a flurry of phonecalls, we were reconciled and my clothing decided to give our relationship another try about a week later...) and found that i was welcomed by the folk i talked to around the demo. and in all the meetings i went to. i did my dissertation research on a cadre of revolutionary marxist militants and was welcomed at every point, was treated with great warmth by these folk--from the outside, you would imagine that this would be a group whose political opposition to american policy would extend the furthest--and i found that these were lovely, warm, intelligent people for whom a seperation between public and administration in the american case was taken for granted, just as they assumed a separation between the policies of the french government and the public would be applied to them.

it seems fundamental to any vestige of thinking-through-democracy--even one as shallow as the american--must presuppose such a distinction between public and administration. the assumption of an identity between these terms has never turned out well for the people.


as for the cliche about the french hating the americans--which i suppose matthew could have been implicitly referring to--i have found that it is in the main bullshit EXCEPT for those who conform to a particular kind of stereotype--those who flood the tourist areas, not bothering to even start to speak any french not bothering to figure out anything about where they are, treating the place like it is a zoo---hang around for any amount of time near the tourist areas, and you will probably find yourself understanding this attitidue far better than you imagine you would.

on another point, i cannot see how anyone could possible argue with the fact that george w bush has severely damaged american credibility internationally. that damage will continue so long as he is in office--but i suspect that this same kind of ability to make distinctions that you will find amongst people in regular lilfe will extend to those in positions of power, and that once bush is run out of office (one way or another) the damage his policies have done and continue to do will begin to reverse. i do think that this damage will be much harder to reverse if bush wins a second term--this is but one of a near riot of reasons why i opppose him.

yes, logic can be construed as flawed if someone doesn't agree with the premises on which the logic is based. i don't agree with many of maher's premises, but that is that case with a lot of pundits.

maher's problem is that (on the shows i watched of his politically incorrect program a few years back) his conclusions aren't logical extensions of his premises. that isn't a matter of factual legitimacy, that is an issue of disconnected thought.

i took a logic class a few years back that was offered by our philosophy dept. we examined "arguments from the wild" (arguments taken from popular pundits and editorials about current events) with our logic goggles on. mr. maher's sytem of thought was one of the most flawed we examined in the small samples we studied, though we found similar issues with sean hannity and rush limbaugh.

an argument can be formally correct if it obeys the rules for combination/derivation--which would include relation to premises--but it does not involve your personal agreement with the premise. i'm just saying that if you want to play this game, be careful.

This evokes an observation, based on the current political climate.
I'm fascinated by folks who seem to think they will convince someone with an opposing political view by process of rational/logical debate. I've never seen that happen. If I thought it was effective, I would engage in it myself - which I do not.

Clearly rational and logical arguments can be constructed to support nearly every opinion humans hold. Evidently there is something else at work here. It could be called blind belief, argument from assumption, or emotionalism - but I think it's more than that.

Experience is not something that can be formulated well in logical/rational contexts. There are essential aspects of our perception and cognition that are not demonstrable, yet they guide our strongly held convictions. One of them is our ability to ascertain character. That is a fairly unexpainable phenomenon, yet we employ it in making judgements about people.

It does stun me how the tendency to argue points, which are in all instances moot, continues unabated here and far more relentlessly in the politicalized press and media.

It's not just the French who hate that "type" of American. Anyone remember National Lampoons European Vacation with Chevy Chase? The Griswalds? That's the kind of American that is hated by not just the French, but the world. And to be honest, most of the rest of America I think too...

:-)

But that's off topic.


Mr Mephisto

Well, meet your first one ART.

I have been convinced to change my opinions on several occasions. Let's discuss a few relevant ones.

1) My initial opinion was that the war in Iraq was unjustified and dangerous. Even though Hussein had flouted UN sanctions I felt that military actions should be the last resort. I was convinced OTHERWISE by believing the arguments of Bush/Blair/Powell that Iraq were developing WMD and (specifically) that they could deploy within 45 minutes. Iraq, according to Blair, had over 100 litres of Anthrax, enough to kill over a million people.

All lies.

Against my initial feelings I argued that the war was justified, that if people had invaded Germany earlier the Holocaust could have been avoided (poor analogy but one people seem to relate to), that manifold UN resolutions were ignored etc.

2) In my heart I still believed the was "right", as it removed a tyrant from power. However, when it turned out that the war was based on false premises and was likely a simple extension of a family fued between the Bush and Husseins, then I listened to the arguments of the other side. I began to see their point, to understand that I was wrong. I now openly admit that.

Here's another

1) I used to be a clear supporter of state ownership of utilities. I didn't believe private enterprise had a place to play in these fundamental services, and that the profit motive would simply reduce the level of care they were obliged to offer all their customers.

2) Having listened and watched over the years, I'm now of the opinion that it does have a place. I would still like to see government ownership of a high percentage of at least ONE company in each area, but I no longer support the entirely socialist position I once did.


I could go on and on.

What does that mean? If it's a simple observation (or opinion), what does it do to develop the thread's argument?

I've been reading your comments here, and with the greatest respect, I don't really understand what you mean to say or contribute. You seem to step in occasionally and make some obscurely worded and generally unrelated comment. There's an entire Philosophy board for this kind of argument or discussion on the nature of truth, logic, opinion etc. You can join the likes of Karl Popper and debate the death of logical positivism there if you wish. But it's kinda out of place here.

I hasten to add that I've only notice this on this thread, and these comments are meant in good nature.

So what you're trying to say that people have different opinions and that they're sometimes not easy to explain; this, even though our opinions tend to be rather important as they help us make judgements on people.

Erm... so what? That's nothing new, has no real relevance to the topic of the thread and seems to be expressed in an elitist manner.

I'm kinda interested in starting an entirely new thread on this topic, but not here. :-)

You believe it's moot to argue points? Again, a topic for the Philosophy forum and one I would be happy to debate. :-)


Mr Mephisto

I'm in favor of constructive engagement and not disputation.
Much of what you say above is laudable and true for you. It is not, in general, the way political debate is conducted. I post here because I have an interest in the opinions of others, not because I feel a need to respond to point-by-point arguments or to convince anyone of anything. I find the diversity of opinion - in itself - illuminating.

Why do people hate the Yankees?

They obviously are a great team yet throught this country people either love them or hate them. They have the most money, they are powerful yet people always say 'Yankess suck' how can this be their record speaks for itself.

Some people just hates winners, can't do anything about that. They will not be happy until we are taken down a notch.

You don't believe political debate is conducted by debate and refutation?

Touché

Mr Mephisto

The irony being that the Yankees haven't won a WS while a republican was in the white house in the last 44 years :lol:

Personally though, I don't see how this has anything to do with the subject at hand - baseball sports are a different dynamic from world politics and real feelings in world situations - hating the Yankees is often a thing of rivalry (see: Sox fans)

I'm hoping it was a satirical post...

:)

Mr Mephisto

roachboy - am i right in assuming that you were involved in the antiwar movement in paris? you said that you attended their meetings... it would appear that you at least appeared to tacitly support their cause.

if so, then i think you can safely infer that the reason why those french people were so hospitable to you is because you added credence to their political notions... not because they were more adept than we here in the US are at separating people from national policy.

nothing would be more welcoming to a french marxist than an American who admires their cause. "see, even the American agrees with us... so we must be right."

if you made yourself to appear completely neutral (which would be next to impossible to do in that crowd for any length of time.) then you may not be seen as a supporter of their cause. if you did not maintain complete neutrality in word and deed, i'm doubting you expressed agreement towards the administration...

think, would they have been nearly as hospitable to you if you supported the war? would they then have no difficulty in separating you from the government's actions?

i think i've tipped my hand as to what my opinions are... but you were there and i am interested in hearing your thoughts.

sidenote: i've been to france as recently as two years ago in fact. i did not personally encounter a large amount anti-american sentiment, though there were times when it was clearly present.

I just want to point something out to you. By this logic, you are telling me that the Europeans are just blowing hot air as well, since a free Europe would not be here today if not for the United States. You would either be saluting the crooked cross or praying to father Stalin right now.

Hell, I was just in France about 4 weeks ago - if there is much hate for Americans right now, it's not that present as people like to imagine - much of the war on Iraq and other issues is sort of "sooooo yesterday."

As in, there isn't much reason to argue over issues when whats done is done.

For the most part and for most sentiments they don't really mind Americans and are appreciative of what we did do for them years ago, but just as in any nation, there is going to also be those people who don't like you.

It was obvious among some people but it's nothing different from appearing as a minority in an area that doesn't like them in our own country. Of course, if you have the money, all is good :D

By that logic, saying stuff against France is just blowing hot air since we wouldn't be a country without French assistance...

Much of what is said by politicians, no matter how stupid it might sound, is used to please the domestic audience - do you really think our president would say something to piss off the nation despite what he feels? Never in public or we would demand his dead.

It's the same for all politicians...

Zeld took the words right out of my hat.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought up the "America saved Europe's ass during WWII" topic. True, but so very stale and worthless as an argument here. Also, please remember that Germany declared war on the US, not the other way round. Despite the Lend Lease program, the US up to that point, supported isolationism.

Mr Mephisto

When Al Queda parrots the Democrat theme of "Anyone But Bush", that makes up my mind pretty well.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

W for Four More.

Al Queda [sic] are supporting political parties in the US?! References?

This is the first I've heard of it.

And your logic is flawed in any case. Or don't you believe that the Democrats would persue Al Queda too?


Mr Mephisto

Wow. That was easy.

Reverse psychology will be your ultimate downfall.

Mephisto, my hat to you for being man enough (ugh person damned feminists ;) ) to admit prior mistakes. I too am like you willing to change my opinion if one can logically explain to my why my viewpoint should move from where it is, and hopefully replace it with a better one.

art, there's not many people out there like Mephisto or myself who are willing to listen to someone's intellegint discourse and re-evaluate their position.

It's around, if you want to Google it. I really don't care if you or OpieCunningham believe me or not.

And no, I don't believe that Kerry has the backbone needed to protect this country.

I believe that if he had been president after 9/11 that we would still be asking the Taliban to "pretty please with sugar on it" hand over Osama.

As to the "world hating us", they already did or didn't you notice?

I have a hard time believing that any president, no matter which party, would have done nothing military wise to take out the people who were responsible for 9/11 - indeed, it's literally demanded by rule to

My neighbor here at work is a hard core Yankee fan and people bash him eveytime the Yankees lose. You ought to see the email he got today after their 22-0 loss.

That is a great piece of trivia re: the Yankees.

about the french issue. I was talking to several french people the other day and a few of my friends just returned from france. Here's the gist...

basically, *most* sane/rational french people dislike the US policies, but have nothing against the people. Therefore, an american can roam freely and interact w/out much hatred being spewed forth. I say w/out much bc there are a few who "hate' americans, but all in all, most understand that the average person has nothing to do with any of the US policies at the current time.

and i think it was mentioned before, w/out france, we wouldn't be around in the same manner.

Also, i don't believe the world hates US in particular. I believe they hate the policies more than the people. Of course, this is oversimplified and there are some obvious omissions

Lebell, if you're basing your decision off of what your enemy said, you've got something wrong.

Al Qaeda stated that under Bush, they would continue to thrive, but Kerry's methods would be their end. What can you derive from this? Absolutely NOTHING. They're playing a 2/7 off-suit hand in poker. They're bluffing. Their entire statement should be null and void in the eyes of any rational thinker.

So now you're telling us all that a decorated war veteran is not fit to defend the country, while a dumb rich party kid who avoided the draft and was frozen solid for 7 minutes after he was told the country was under attack IS? Check your logic, sir!

AND you're resigned to just letting the world hate us? Shit, people, where is your honor?

Yes. another over simplified soundbyte, "I'd rather be the best father than the best neighbor, it's not possible to accomplish both."

VERY oversimplified. Being the best in one area doesn't mean you've gotta be the worst in the other. We could do MUCH better in BOTH areas.

Halx, I respect what you are saying, but I have to say that I feel that I believe that principles are more important than a popularity contest. Hell, I'd rather be disliked for doing the right thing than liked for being a conformist or push-over. Now, as to whether I think Bush is actually doing the right thing... Sometimes, and sometimes not. It's just that I am not interested in voting for president based on my perceptions of how much others LIKE us. I'm trying to weigh how much I value what each candidate is saying they will do.

"art, there's not many people out there like Mephisto or myself who are willing to listen to someone's intellegint discourse and re-evaluate their position."

Cynthetic, that's correct. I'd furthermore maintain that even your own opinions were changed not so much by the positions of others but, more deeply, by your experience of and reflection upon the world and the socio-political and global matrix vis-a-vis the practicability of actually effecting change. These are difficult, if not impossible, qualities to quantify or delineate. This is why I am more interested in the positions people take than I am of their explanation or defense of them.

What is that supposed to mean?

Our "experience of the socio-political and global matrix"?

Erm...

Check out this link: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

:-)

I can't speak for Cynthetiq, but my opinions were changed because of the logical arguments of others, the fact that I realised my position was based on falsehoods and the fact that sometimes I simply just got it wrong.

And I will continue to develop my opinions and change my beliefs as I live my life. To do otherwise is silly. Finally, things are not usually black and white; there's usually shades of grey to consider.


Mr Mephisto

art, I tend to think that my presence alone is enough to affect change. It may not be huge change but the possibility exists. I'm going to go with Mephisto on this and say it's more or less the logical argument and realizing the my own position happened to not have enough or correct information.

An item to your point true is that I do try things differently from time to time just to see if I still dislike them, example foods that I did not like as a kid I do now, and vice versa. Every so often I will try something again and see if my palate has changed. Sometimes to my surprise it has changed, sometimes I still have dislike for it.

I agree with Mephisto that it's part of my learning lessons in life. Since I am the culmination of all my experience and years, if I pay attention I can see how I shared some of the more liberal viewpoints in my younger years with some of the young people of today.

as for Halx, yes we could do better, but I do think that it's hypocritical to try to (again simplified soundbyte) "fix the neighborhood before fixing your own house." By fixing my own house and encouraging others to do so leading by example, I fix the neighborhood.

I was just thinking more about what you said art, and "the practicability of actually effecting change." sounds to me like submission, acquiesing, defeatist or "giving up" even.

I will agree that in my older years I've not been as active as I was from physical to political, but I think that has more to do with time than not being able to effect change.

Indeed. This is also my preferred method. This is also why I severely dislike Bush.

No, I don't base any decision of this importance on any one factor, but I also surely weigh them all and give some more importance than others.

I believe differently than you in that Kerry would effectively deal with Al Quaeda, decorations aside.

You can go to virtually any country in theworld and in almost every country you will find people that dislike the United States, if you ask them why they will say because George W Bush is a unqualified and "stupid" leader, and he made bad desisions. Look at Athens for an example. Just by hearing that Colin Powell(which I think is the best member of the Bush Administration) was coming to watch the closing ceremonies they had a huge riot.

Ahh, so pissing off the Iraqis, like kicking a beehive, is a rational and constructive way to subdue a civilian-rooted movement? Do we need to remember Vietnam?

Bush is no closer to overcoming either Al Qaeda or the Iraqis than he was 4 years ago. They've only taken on different forms. He's incompetent. The action is despicable.

I've been waiting for someone to say that. Because you see you're right - for now.

We should not yet be ashamed to be from America as many Americans are now saying. Bush ran on an isolationist platform. No one who voted for him could have any inkling of the idea that he would invade Iraq and turn the world against us. The American people are not to blame and should not be held accountable for our country's actions if they're ordered unilaterally by the president UNLESS

They fail to vote him out of office this election. See, if Bush is reelected in a fair (read: Florida doesn't fuck up) election, then it means that the majority of the country supports the idea that we should attack anyone we want to even if they pose no threat to us. It would mean that it's NOT just Bush screwing up, but that we're endorsing his screw up by putting him in office for another 4 years. THEN would be the time to be ashamed to be an American, because our country, rather than just one rogue leader and his posse of warmongers, has shifted from its original course of being a respected bulwark of freedom to being a tyrannical superpower.

Hopefully, I won't have to be ashamed to live here.

I agree that Bush's main problem is his incompetence. And also his bull-headedness. When he digs himself (and the country) into a hole, he refuses to admit it; he simply keeps digging, blindly, without any kind of foresight. Who in the hell is going to fix this mess? Certainly not him. We need to give someone else the opportunity to get shit back on track.

"pissing off the Iraqis"??

Those of us who are a little older remember well the shock when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, not to mention all the other people that maniac killed.

Want me to go down the list of why that man needed to be taken out?

And quit playing the "Vietnam" card, because it doesn't apply, and yes, Bush is MUCH closer.

Bush is doing a tough job that won't be accomplished by hand-wringing or half measures.

If anything, Vietnam was lost by attitudes like yours, which prevented Johnson from doing what needed to be done early on. So thanks, but no thanks. You can keep Kerry, because if he gets in I can totally see another Vietnam as we pull half assed out of Iraq and fail to answer attacks from extremists with the force necessary to destroy them.

[QUOTE=Lebell]"pissing off the Iraqis"??

Those of us who are a little older remember well the shock when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, not to mention all the other people that maniac killed.

Want me to go down the list of why that man needed to be taken out?
[quote]

There are plenty of reasons. NO ONE is disputing this.

However, the way it was done, the falsehoods that were presented to the public, the implication that he was involved in 9/11, the personal familial animosity affecting national policy.... All these topics are what are pissing people off.

Remember, the world believes in teh UN and multi-lateralism. It doesn't really matter if the US does or not. The fact is, that a unilateral US will piss off other countries because you are working outside accepted standards, international law (to which you are signatories), the United Nations (of which you were founding members and is the child of the League of Nations, itself created by a great American President) and that your approach of "might means right" does not make you any friends.

THAT'S why Bush is damaging US reputation. Continue to stomp around flailing your arms like a big bully if you wish, but it won't make any difference. And don't be surprised when someone sneaks up on you and kicks you in the balls. That's basically what's happened already, eh?

My God... you don't actually believe that, do you? Witness what the Russians have done in Chechnya. They have bombed that country almost back into the stone age and the rebels still fight. The only way the US could have "won" the Vietnam War would have been by turning it into a sheet of glass. Get real.

At least he fought there. :-) I don't like it when Bush supporters spout bullshit about "their man" being braver, better, bigger... Kerry fought, fought well and was not afraid of his duties.

Bush? erm...


Mr Mephisto

PS - those last comments are kinda cage-rattling. :-) Let's not degenerate into a Bush vs Kerry military experience debate. Even Bush knows when to back off that hot potato...

kerry's military record has been called into question too, you know

It seemed appropriate to quote you.

Yes, I actually believe what I said, and feel much the same about what you said.

Let's prioritize here. If Saddam needed to be taken out, then why are we also not involved in Sudan? Puh-leeze. If you're claiming that Bush was justified in taking over Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy and it was our duty to do so, you're blinding yourself. The US's military might is NEEDED in many other areas of the world, but GWB chooses Iraq over them all.. why?

Don't cover up for GWB's greedy motives for him.

Bush's idea of diplomacy is, "Give up or we'll take over." What the fuck kind of policy is that? You think the USA will become pussified with Kerry in charge? Damn, I'd expect a man with an actual military record to know how to perform an operation better than a trigger-happy blowhard who probably has Battlefield 1942 on his presidential computer... assuming he even knows how to turn it on.

I'm gonna pull every card I have to spread the word that Bush is a terrible president.

Every time someone says, "God Bless America" or "God Bless George W Bush" I cringe. I'm an American, but I don't believe in God. I don't want to be carried away with the rest of the country on this mission "backed" by fuckin' *God*. We're crusading... shit, it's infuriating.

Much about what I said? I'm confused now. About Vietnam?

As far as I know, very few realistic people believe the Vietnam war could ever have been won. There are many many cases where such wars have proven unwinable [sp?].

Vietnam itself.
Afghanistan (the original Russian invasion)
Two Russian invasions of Chechnya
Iraq (today)
Peninsular War (where the term guerilla was born)
etc
etc

When the native population of the country are against an occupying force, and do not fight in standard military doctrine, you simply can not "win". That's been proven so many times.

The one time the Vietnamese fought in standard military actions (the Tet Offensive of 1968) they were soundly defeated by the US. But America still lost the war. And you think Johnson had his hands tied? Was illegally bombing the shit out of Laos not enough? Blitzing Hanoi not enough? Killing thousands of innocent civilians not enough?

What more would you have done to proffer the American services a glorious victory?


Mr Mephisto

I really don't see the point of this.

I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours.

You've made up your minds about what is true as I've made up mine.

I'm as sure you are wrong as you are I am wrong.

Halx and Mephisto, I'm glad we live in a country where we can all have our own opinions.

Ciao.

on vietnam. the "vietnam card"......

the americans were not stabbed in the back by anyone..that is a far right canard that somehow has wended its way into mainstream discourse....the fact is that the americans had no idea what they were fighting against, what the historical situation that shaped that fight was--hell if robert macnamara can admit this freely, you would think the american right would be able to follow suit.

and there **are** parallels between these situations--formal ones--but they exist--from the selling of a war under false pretenses (the tonkin gulf charade) to the refusal to take seriously what is happening on the ground, to the idiotic idea that you can impose democracy, in its shallow american form even, through war and simply wipe out and entirely different mode of thinking about politics, to a kind of collective mental block that prevented the americans in both cases from understanding that national liberation did not mean colonial occupation by americans==the list goes on and on.

the john-wayne attitude (we cahnt do nuthin with handwringing gestures) functioned during vietnam as a public justification carnage in vietnam, much more than waht might have been necessary, even if you accepted the american argument for being there in the first place--which i do not. the same kind of john wayne idiocy in iraq has and will do the same.

that saddam hussein was not a great guy is not in dispute--but (i have written this before) the americans have supported dictators far wrose than him without the slightest qualm over the past 70 years or so--if you look at the history of american foreign policy, you find that this is a country that really does not give a shit about human rights unless the matter gets tangled up in one of political expediency
.
saddam hussein was a problem for the neocons because of the narrative they floated about the first gulf war--that "the job was not finished" because the americans were hobbled by the evil united nations--this war is much more about an attempt by these people to reverse a precedent and place american military power over any and all international institutions--except they fucked it up and will continue to fuck it up---because they believed the totally false scenarios created by nitwits like wolfowitz who actually persuaded bush that this would be easy, that the americans would be welcomed with open arms and flowers--we'll be home by christmas, ma--blah blah blah.

instead you have a fiasco. unjustified from the outset, sold on the basis of lies at worst, of wildly misread "intellgence" at best, not thought out, not going according to plan--an action with nothing--aboslutely nothing--to do with any "war on terror" that has causesd thousands of civilian casualties that the americans try to deal with by not talking about them. great stuff. worked out great in vietnam too.

you even have a repeat of the "guns and butter" mode of funding a war by not funding it really thing that worked so fabulously for johnson.

it is astonishing. it required an incompetent of a really high order to pull this off. you have one in george w bush--who by the way is obviously a unilateralist, not an isolationist (buchanan was and is one of these)....

Well, that's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? I thought the whole purpose of TFP, and open debate in general, was discussion and sharing of views.

If you are simply going to say "I've stated my opinion and I'm sure you're wrong" then walk away, why do you bother coming here?

I agree with and enjoy lots of your posts on different subjects. I just don't think you've thought this one through. You say you believe the war in Vietnam could have been won if Johnson didn't have his hands tied.

One simple question.

How?


Mr Mephisto

irate: i think most of my experience was a function of being able to speak french.
i even got to the point where i could understand that a joke had been uttered, even if i did not always actually get the joke--and started to be able to have actual emotions in french--which was good, ebcause of r awhile i was a very placid fellow who did not react to things much and smiled vacantly when others were laughing.

the language thing preceded everything else.
as for making myself neutral--not possible---beginning with my height (6'2", or something like that) and running through how i carry myself, my sense of personal space--all of it marked me over and over as american. i was interested in the place, in what was going on around me, but i never tried or wanted to try to become french or pretend i was.

like anywhere, if you are in a place long enough you meet a certain percentage of assholes--at least after a while i knew what they were saying.

as for the question of whether i expect i would have met with the same reception if i had supported the war--well i probably would not have put myself in the same situations. i would not have met the same people. there are many many scenes, political and otherwise, in paris and you can choose where you turn up and how you go about it--it is a big city. i could have had a great time there and not met anyone from the left. i could have spent just as much time in exactly the same clubs i went to and not run into political discussions. it is like anywhere else, that way, any city.

but at no point---not one--even with people i came to see as assholes---did anyone confuse me as a person with the policies of the american government.

i suspect that this response goes differently than you anticipated, but there we are.

Discussion is fine, but most of TFP avoids the Politics board because it ISN'T discussion, it is browbeating each other until one side gives up out of shear fatigue.

This is what is not enjoyable to me anymore and one of the reasons why I have been extremely scarce.

If you choose to believe that's a copout, I can live with that.

Since you asked a simple question without the embellishing sarcasm (another thing that is endemic to this board and something I've given into more than once, to my shame), I'll answer you.

The enemy in Vietnam was not only the VC, but also the North Vietnamese. These were the people who were supporting the rebels and destabilizing the South.

As it was, we dealt with the simptoms, not the disease, while the fifth column was hard at work in America undermining support for the war.

As you said, Tet was a huge loss for the VC, but if you ask the average semi-informed US adult, they think that we lost big...and we did where it mattered, in the arena of public opinion.

So the VC won not because they were better but because they used basic game strategy: they caused us to keep from committing all our forces while they strung out the war, undermining support for it back home...which is what the left is trying to do now in Iraq.

So in that regard, yes, Iraq has the potential to become another Viet Nam.

I don't believe I was browbeating you, or you me. And I hopefully wasn't being sarcastic. In fact, I was rather enjoying this discussion.

The ultra-corrupt South Vietnamese regime itself was also not helping. In fact, it later became an embarrassment for the US to be seen propping them up. But, yes of course the NVA were also the enemy. That's why you bombed the shit out of their capital. To no avail.

The fifth column?! Come on! You honestly don't believe that the anti-war movement was being funded or directed by the North Vietnamese? Because that's what a fifth column is. Another group of enemies.

You mention elsewhere you were glad you lived in a country where you could state your opinion. Does that right not extend to those opposed to the Vietnam war? Or was the shooting dead of those student protestors by the National Guard justified. Be consistent.

I don't think the VC had anything to do with undermining the support for the war "back home". 40,000 US military deaths, pictures of attrocities, war fatigue, the utter corruption of South Vietnamese President Thieu and his extravagant wife... all these contributed to the anti-war movement.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Iraqi "elements" are funding/supporting a secret fifth column in the US today? Don't you think that's a bit unlikely? Perhaps the people now, as they did back in the Vietnam era, just don't want the war?

Yes. Yes it does.



Mr Mephisto

Perhaps we can change this format to where we are asking questions of eachother instead of preaching at eachother.

LOL... fair enough.

That's what I thought I was doing.

Mr Mephisto

Yeah. I just tried that in the What would America do thread and I got accused of hijacking it.

Oh well.

I lost all respect for Bill Maher when he said that it wasn't the executive branch but the judical branch that carries out the law. Most off the time he is talking out of his ass with only his opinions and incorrect facts.

id just like to pop in and say thanks halx, for this wonderful service. ive been a member off and on for at least 4 years (maybe more) and i really dig this forum. discussions like this turn ugly REALLY fast in other places, like fark, et al.

that said, america, please dont re-elect bush. if you do, you will have been dumbed into submission. this campaign and his admin are masterful manipulators, and i suspect at LEAST 30% of his votes come from simply being fooled.

of course, it WOULD help if the dems picked a decent candidate....

1st, Halx, thankyou for being aware of life outside the US. Every year fewer high school students can identify europe, asia, or even the middle east on a map.
as an american resident in europe for more than 13 years, I´ve watched the temperature rise and fall. It´s never been as ugly as it is at the present. GWB really has alienated the entire international community. Relations between US and historically valuable and untouchable allies have been damaged to an almost unknown degree. Bushgang politics have reinforced the arguments of paranoid anti global corporation orwellian drum beating hippies worldwide. Not to mention some of the most intelligent political thinkers and analysts of our time.
you would think that experience and sheer common sense would have taught us a few things. why do we daily sink deeper into national fear and mistrust of any country lacking 7-11s? because we are told this is the new reality. this is how it´s going to be. forever.
thankfully, you folk are the exception to the law of american ignorance and apathy.
even you sad misguided bush buddies.You actually search out information that you would never recieve otherwise. american media has never hit a lower point. in europe we get casualties and informed opinion. in the US you get martha stewart and fox news.
when i tell people i´m from the states, i always feel obliged to add, "but, i´m one of the good ones. there´s a bunch of us. scouts honor."

I think blindly following the fucktard currently at the helm of this country is a mistake- and I see a lot of that. I am honestly shocked by some people's total infatuation with him. I am in complete confusion as to how anyone could think Bush's reign has had any positive effects on this country.

I have come to the conclusion that I do not want a President who runs the country by what he thinks is God's will, despite my religious beliefs. I do not want a president whose ass is occupied by the puppeteer hand of the country's "vocal minority" fundies, when it's not being licked clean by corporations. I do not want a president who caters to special interest groups to the point where a shift in their thought causes him to make different decisions for the entire country as a whole.

There is NO REASON the legal binding and association of two people, regardless of sex, is still not legal.
There is NO REASON why stem cell research, which could very well cure some of the most long-standing incurable diseases and end suffering and death, is still not legal. The restrictions he's placed on their use are laughable at best from a scientific viewpoint.
There is NO REASON why our schools continue to lose money, why they cannot properly train and educate young people due to a lack of budget. Education is key to our collective future.

This is the year 2004, people. I thought by now we'd be past petty bullshit and be able to coexist without trying to force our own will onto other people. There is no way that Bush can move this country in a positive direction from here- he will only take us backwards, put us more in debt, and turn the entire world against us. I voted the asshole in, and now I will cast my vote to see him out. If he wins for another 4 years, i'm placing bets on him causing WWIII... not as an "if", but as a "when".

This is why I have come to the conclusion that on election day, I will be selecting "anyone but Bush" as the next President.

I've finally decided, I think, who to vote for. It's Kerry, but not for different reasons than most folks.

I don't care about their war records and/or dodging efforts. This time around I think my assault weapons are safe from Kerry and that abortions are safe from Bush. I also don't really care about the Patriot act. Yes, it makes me a little nervous, but, that's what the Supreme Court is for. Besides, if I end up caring about it I'll take my voting out on congress. :) As an athiest the Bush God stuff makes me uneasy, but I'm also fiscally conservative enough that the Kerry economic plan makes me nervous also.

The US invasion of Iraq earns Bush a few points. SH is evil and needed to be removed. Doing it without some European/world backing gets him a plus also: I want someone who will tell the world to piss off and do what he thinks is right, up to and including invading another country. In addition, the world needed to know that our attitude towards hostility has changed. I'm sure there's not a world leader who now doesn't know we're serious about active defiance of the US in area of security.

Iraq also looses Bush a few points. I may like it when you tell the world to piss off, but you also need to work vigerously to convince the misguided nations of the Earth to join you. Invading Iraq because you/theCIA _think_ they have WMD is ok. Invading Iraq because it's time to make a statement about the US commitment to security is also ok. Invading Iraq because God told you to free the peoples of the Earth (60 Minutes) is not Ok. Improper oversight of the CIA, where your WMD information comes from, is also not ok (even though I suspect Kerry would have had the same problem with the CIA - every president seems to have this problem with the CIA.)

I want to know that John Kerry will invade a country that is in open defiance of the US and/or harboring terrorists. If he would come right out and say that then I'd be a lot more comfortable. He's said some things lately that make me think that might actually be his position, even though he seems to be obfuscating it (for the benefit of the majority of his party?)

I know Bush will act unilaterally. I now think Kerry will also, so the most important issue to me is now a push. Added in to the mix are the VP and the Speaker of the House telling me I should vote for them because if I don't the terrorists will attack us. Naughty naughty. Intelligent voters don't like it when you pander to the masses with scare tactics. That pushes me over to the Kerry camp.

If Kerry comes out and says he won't invade a country unilaterally, then I'll have to reevaluate. I'll also have to reevaluate if I believe Bush knew there was no WMD/the CIA was wrong. (Invading to make a point is ok. Lying about the reasons are not.)

This is the statement that pushed me in to the Kerry camp:
============(from CNN)================
"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Qaida where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people," Edwards said.

I don't know. I don't read it that way at all. I have serious doubts that Kerry/Edwards will say invade Somalia or Yemen should Osama be there. It appears to stand in contrast to their position on invading a "sovereign" nation without world approval. But hey, that's just me. I've been wrong before.

I finally got around to researching his pre-emption policy. Googling on Kerry pre-emption returns this from a site called commondreams:

"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am," he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

Kerry said the intelligence needs to be improved so that the word of a U.S. president "is good enough for people across the world again."

But he added, "I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."

Hmmm, so unless the US's very existence is threatened or there's a humanitarian reason it won't happen. That kind of goes against pre-emption in my eyes. Pre-emption keeps the threat of our very existence at arm's length rather than at the door knocking.

exactly when did pre-emption become our policy and a 'good thing.' Pre-emption kinda makes me nervous as it seems a president could say, 'this country is a threat, we are going to invade" and bam, we're in a war with no way out....oh wait, we are....

still, I can understand why it could be seen as a good thing, an imminent threat from a country should be stopped asap, but I believe the intelligence required and the evidence against the country should be a bit more substantial than current requirements seem to be...

Besides, could you imagine if the entire world adopted a pre-emptive strike policy?

Of course, what qualifies as "imminent?" Me and Pres. bush seem to disagree on that definition. Maybe we can cut 'n paste the arguments from half a million Iraq threads and save ourselves some effort in this one :)

You are so RIGHT. George has to go. We have committed so many international crimes against the world, that George could be tried for war crimes by an international court except that we are the most powerful Country, and the world has no way of bringing him to trial, except if we the people hand him over and that will never be done. Our current policies and actions in the world has been fertilizer to world terrorism and soon the whole world will be against us. We presently do not walk the talk of our Constitution and if you also look at Bush's campaign promises of 2000 and his actions and bills passed, they do not match up. Bush is not a President of the People, by the People and for the People. Bush is only for the land owners and the american aristocracts, riches 1%. Remember his grandfather H.W. Bush was King of Nicaragua for two years and George W. Bush wants to be King (Fuhrer) of the United States.