Which Fool Should I Vote For? Bush or Kerry?

See the debate last night?

Bush looked lost without someone there to feed him answers...

Originally posted by Alias47
CAV, please don't feel that this is a personal attack...I would hate to have hard feelings. I enjoy discussing strong topics such as politics and this is a political forum.

I have pledged my very life to defend the document that gives you the RIGHT to disagree with me. I’m certainly not going to have hard feelings because you choose to do so! J

Originally posted by Alias47
What is your position in the military? You speak like you are a consummate tactician and have access to "eyes only" classified documents.

I hope you’ll understand if I don’t answer this question. I’m not being evasive but I don’t believe that it needs to be a matter of public record, nor do I think it affects my ability to argue my positions.

Originally posted by Alias47
Do you really think that Bush's White House would keep anything they thought even MIGHT be a WMD in Iraq a secret? It would be on the news so fast your head would spin. With the impending election, news like that could save Bush's presidency...and lend him credibility.

Yes I do. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the findings from Iraq will remain classified/undisclosed for the foreseeable future. Bush isn’t the kind of guy that needs “popular opinion” to validate his actions. There is nothing to be gained from disclosing this information, but as the case with any investigation, doing so can have negative consequences. Do you for a minute honestly believe that the French would suddenly reverse their thinking even if we had documented and disclosed such evidence? They lost the goose with its golden eggs when the Oil for Food program became extinct. They didn’t support multilateral military action when there was documented evidence of illegal weapons programs, identified by international inspectors so why would we expect it now?

We are at war with a determined enemy. These people don’t need carte blanche access to our national intelligence. Airing out our laundry and putting everything on FOX or CNN would be a colossal strategic blunder. Just like in poker, you never televise what cards your holding. At least not if you want to win………

Originally posted by Alias47
Speaking of credibility...you have done nothing whatsoever to attain any level of credibility.

Since you don’t know me from Adam, I don’t even see a need to respond to this statement.

Originally posted by Alias47
My credibility comes from the fact that I am an American Citizen, a registered voter, with a wealth of information (regardless of the fact that almost all media is biased in some regard) in front of me daily.

The flaw with this argument lies in the fact that you only have partial access to the facts. Economists call this information asymmetry. Many American, despite the fact that their only news source is a slanted morning paper or “The Daily Show”, think they know all. In reality, you’re only second-guessing the entire national intelligence community and your dually elected leaders, both of which have a much more complete picture to make decisions with. Despite the extremely partisan, and overtly politically and tainted findings of the 9-11 commission, this nation’s intelligence gathering capacities and capabilities are simply mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Alias47
I DO NOT support the motives that got us there in the first place, nor the decisions and methods that are keeping us there, now and in the future.

Please tell me what you think those motives are. If you say “WMD”, I will state simply, without becoming too personal, that you are uninformed and don’t have even the most basic grasp of the politics of the modern Middle East.

What are the “decisions and motives” you speak of?

Originally posted by Alias47
I asked for one shred of evidence that supports us being in Iraq.
You stated that Iran is a bigger threat and wouldn't we "rather be poised, ready and sitting on their borders?" Last I knew, the forcible takeover of a country because they are adjacent to our real target was something done by Hitler's Nazi Germany and against International Law.

Comparing this administration’s actions against the thug regime of Hussein and his Baathist butchers (NOT the people of Iraqi) to Hitler’s 1938-1940 conquest of Europe, is simply ludicrous. Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law for more than a dozen years. The U.N. resolutions had already authorized the use of military force. Regardless, from a strictly historical perspective, this country was technically never preemptively attacked by Mexico, Spain, Germany, Italy, the Ottoman-Turks, Russia, the Vichy French, North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq I, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Afghanistan, yet we engaged in military operations against all of these individual nations. Think about how different the world would be if we had remained an isolationist nation-state. This nation has a history of preemptive use of force to protect individual freedom.

Originally posted by Alias47
You really feel that Iran is that important that we should have killed thousands of innocent civilians...and over a thousand of our own troops, your PEERS, to have access to their border? You have an even worse case for being there than Bush.

No, I believe that there is a strategic plan being executed, that to date has included the Al Qaeda leadership, the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and Iraq. A war is not defined as a singular event; that is a battle. Wars are a series of individual battles, orchestrated in such a way as to eliminate the other guy’s ability to continue the fight. Just like the allied landings at Normandy were but a single day, Iraq is just another milestone on the road to victory in this truly GLOBAL War on Terror.

Originally posted by Alias47
As I am sure you, with your vast tactical knowledge, know, Iran is also bordered on the northwest by Turkey. Of course their common border is only about a third of the one that Iraq shares with them. On the east they share a large common border with Afghanistan, which we were supposed to have conquered (with a darn good reason...I am in full support of Afghanistan) but left to the wayside once Iraq became the focus. We have enough control of that country to use it for access to Iran.
On the northwest is the Black Sea and the South is the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Directly across the Persian Gulf is Saudi Arabia (Our so called ally) and almost touching is Kuwait, who owes us a debt of gratitude that is unpayable.

I’m well acquainted with the geography of the region, and you have only strengthened my argument. Iran is now out of options and out of friends. THEY are the ones feeding the Iraqi insurgents, Syria, Hamas, and others. Toppling that domino will have an immeasurable impact on both our safety and that of other nations in the region. As I’ve already mentioned, Iraq will be but one of the stops along the way.

In case you aren’t aware, Turkey is a member of NATO. (I’m not sure what point you were trying to make there.) I’m also not sure why you think we have abandoned Afghanistan. That is just not factual.

Originally posted by Alias47
Being of a military mind...you must know that for a full scale military invasion, our most efficient and productive means of attack is by air. Bombers and Naval aircraft and missles systems are the single most important weapon in conventional warfare. So how important is Iraq?

Not true. All the airpower in the world can’t take a single foot of real estate. Ground forces are still required to achieve total victory. How long did we bomb the Iraqis in 1991? How many tons of ordinance were dropped on them? Did they withdraw from Kuwait? Nope, it took the application of land forces to effect their capitulation and withdrawl.

Originally posted by Alias47
Before we invaded Iraq we had Iran surrounded on three sides.
Now that we have Iraq...if we were to invade, we would leave our backs open to Syria, the other, OTHER biggest threat in the middle east.

Whose to say we wouldn’t just take Syria and Iran simultaneously? (Syria isn’t exactly a world power)

Originally posted by Alias47
Tell me what advantage we are gaining by fighting a guerilla war in the streets of Bahgdad?

A most simple response: Fighting them in their streets, keeps them from fighting us in ours.

Originally posted by Alias47
I voted in 1992,1996, and 2000. I voted in all my state and local elections, the primaries and will vote in November.
I regularly write letters to my Representative and Senator...on both the State and Federal level.

Then I stand corrected and thank you for being a good American. It also indicates that you care about this country that I can still hope that there is time left for you to see the error of your logic.

Originally posted by Alias47
Because we do not (and probably never will) agree on politics, does not mean I don't think you are a good person. I have read many of your other posts and think you are someone I would get along with just fine. The beauty of our political system is that we can hold dissenting opinions. And talk freely about them. It is our right.

Politics is never personal. Regardless of what you and I might believe, the will of the people will ultimately be all that matters.


On another note.......

Originally posted by firehooligan [b]This will be my first election voting since I am only 20. And yes, I did vote in the primary's. And no the world is not safer with Bush.
[b]

I'm glad to see that you are participation early in life. That gives me hope for the future.

If you've read this post then you already know that I clearly, and with some credability, disagree with your assumption as to the safety of the homeland.

Originally posted by Alias47
See the debate last night?

Bush looked lost without someone there to feed him answers...

Alias47, the debate was a toss-up and won't change a vote. Both made some good points and niether made a major gaffe. Dems are still behind Kerry and the GOP is still behind Bush. The undecideds will be that way until November 2nd.......

Originally posted by CAV
I hope you’ll understand if I don’t answer this question. I’m not being evasive but I don’t believe that it needs to be a matter of public record, nor do I think it affects my ability to argue my positions.

Understandable...

Originally posted by CAV
There is nothing to be gained from disclosing this information

Other than the upperhand in a very close presidential election race. Most politicians (and I am not just talking about GWB) are motivated first and foremost by power. I would not say money...because with power comes money...and though there are a small handful of idealists in political office who really work for the people...even these tend to become tainted by the whole system.

Originally posted by CAV
Since you don’t know me from Adam, I don’t even see a need to respond to this statement.

Okay...and I can agree with that statement...but you questioned my credibility first...this logic should be applied by you as well.

Originally posted by CAV
The flaw with this argument lies in the fact that you only have partial access to the facts.

Unless you are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Colin Powell (or their butler) you only have partial access to the facts as well. Even the head of the CIA doesn't have all the info, or the Joint Chiefs for that matter.
Especially if you are in the military. It is well known that information released to memebrs of the military is COMPLETELY biased, although may be thought to be priveledged, or completely truthful. This is one of the ways they keep a harness on morale, among other things. Noble motive? Maybe. Keeps the fighting boys happy to do their job...which, regardless of the situation or reason for the fight, is a good thing.

Originally posted by CAV
Please tell me what you think those motives are.

If I say WMD?? I realize that this was Bush's public reason...and his outward incentive...at least in the world theater and the U.N. discussions.
Here is a documented history of the Bush Administration talking about WMD's. They can talk about them til they are blue in the face.
http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

Here is the "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad" quote.
I wish I could find an original transcript so it would define the moment better (one way or the other). I am more interested in the truth than being right...but one person version of the truth is not always someone else's especially when it comes to politics and religion.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...alk/index.html

Originally posted by CAV
yet we engaged in military operations against all of these individual nations. Think about how different the world would be if we had remained an isolationist nation-state.

I am not saying we have always been attacked...and this nation definitely has a history of pre-emptive attack. Which is fine when it is warranted. I am questioning the motives and for THIS pre-emptive attack. If the only reason is to have a better foothold for future action against the neighboring countries...that is EXACTLY what Hitler did. I would never advocate our country becoming an isolationist state. I believe that Bush's foreign policy has made huge backwards strides in the world community. I believe that through Bush's actions we have lost a great amount of respect in the eyes of the world.

Originally posted by CAV
Iraq is just another milestone on the road to victory in this truly GLOBAL War on Terror.

I still haven't seen a strong link between Iraq and Global Terror. If you say that the suicide bombings in Iraq are terrorist incedents...that is completely unacceptable. These were incurred due to our military takeover of their way of life.
When does the victim become the terrorist?
Like the child abuse victim that beats his kids.
I ask you, do you see an end to the war on terrorism?
As long we are taking out terrorists on a global level there will ALWAYS be someone we piss off to replace them. This is starting to sound like the Crusade's...just not cramming Christianity down their throats. The people who hate us do so because their radical religious beliefs lead them to think we are evil. We will never break them of this. We go in and force our ideals and democracy on them. These people are killing our troops because they want to be oppressed. Crazy as that sounds...it does seem to be a fact.

Originally posted by CAV
In case you aren’t aware, Turkey is a member of NATO. (I’m not sure what point you were trying to make there.) I’m also not sure why you think we have abandoned Afghanistan. That is just not factual.

I am well aware...and that WAS my point...if we are looking for a land attack...it was already in our hands. I never stated we abandoned Afghanistan...however it has not been the focal point of any of our operations. It has been pushed to the wayside by this insurmountable obstacle of Iraq.

Originally posted by CAV
Not true. All the airpower in the world can’t take a single foot of real estate. Ground forces are still required to achieve total victory. How long did we bomb the Iraqis in 1991? How many tons of ordinance were dropped on them? Did they withdraw from Kuwait? Nope, it took the application of land forces to effect their capitulation and withdrawl.

While I agree with you that it takes men on land to take ground...air combat and bombardment is the single most effective way to gain that ground easily.

Here is a complete casualty list for the entire Persian Gulf War:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/GWSUM.pdf
Keep in mind we were fighting a better prepared, equipped, and larger army at this time.

Here are two lists for the current Operation Iraqi Freedom:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualt...ths-Before.pdf
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualt...aths-After.pdf

The first is before April 30th and the second is from May 1st on...don't know when it was last updated.

See the difference between blowing the hell out of them and walking in without major air advance?

Iran may not have many friends...but directly north is the Caspian Sea, which is as unstable as the section of the middle east below it. This could become a very, VERY large problem...best part is these countries are highly unorganized.

Originally posted by CAV
Whose to say we wouldn’t just take Syria and Iran simultaneously? (Syria isn’t exactly a world power)

I agree , although I feel like I am talkng to Dick "Bloodlust" Cheney (Hey, maybe I am...you were awful vague about your military career...seem to know quite a bit...perhaps some experience as the Joint Chiefs Chairman?? )

Originally posted by CAV
A most simple response: Fighting them in their streets, keeps them from fighting us in ours.

How many Iraqi insurgents have you seen in Texas lately? Don't tell me it's only because we are fighting them in Iraq.

How many of these people can afford new clothes...much less a way to get to America to fight us.

Originally posted by CAV
Then I stand corrected and thank you for being a good American. It also indicates that you care about this country that I can still hope that there is time left for you to see the error of your logic.

Although a difference of opinions based on interpretation and values cannot be construed to be a logical error. Just an opposing opinion.

Originally posted by CAV
Politics is never personal. Regardless of what you and I might believe, the will of the people will ultimately be all that matters.

I can only hope that this will always remain true.

Originally posted by CAV
Alias47, the debate was a toss-up and won't change a vote. Both made some good points and niether made a major gaffe. Dems are still behind Kerry and the GOP is still behind Bush. The undecideds will be that way until November 2nd.......

You are right...I was just discussing the way Bush seemed inarticulate at times. Makes me worry about the leadership of a man who is the biggest world leader.

He has had this problem throughout his political history...although I am not familiar with his history as Gov. of Texas.

Although...he ran several failing businesses...what qualifies him to run the country...other than he is the son of a former president?

Originally posted by Alias47
You are right...I was just discussing the way Bush seemed inarticulate at times. Makes me worry about the leadership of a man who is the biggest world leader.

He has had this problem throughout his political history...although I am not familiar with his history as Gov. of Texas.

Although...he ran several failing businesses...what qualifies him to run the country...other than he is the son of a former president?

Actually, considering he spent long three days being a true leader, traveling the state and visiting with victims and relief workers of Florida's horrific disasters I though he did just fine. I think the most Floridians would agree; Bush is now up 9 pts in the Sunshine state.

Actually he was quite popular in Texas with both parties. He ran a very cohesive ship that was largely bipartisan. Two-term GOP governor in a historically Democratic state. That was his only other political experience other than running for Congress in '78.

BTW, he's qualified because he's native born, over the prescribed age, and won a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. Exactly like the Founding Fathers planned.

Originally posted by Alias47
Other than the upperhand in a very close presidential election race. Most politicians (and I am not just talking about GWB) are motivated first and foremost by power.

Does Bush strike you as the kind of guy that does anything because of political gain? Do you honestly think that we would still be in Iraq if his only concern was re-election? Would he take the same stands on issues like stem cell research, faiths based initiatives, gay marriage, dealing with Europe, the Middle East, or just choose to remain silent and ignore Michael Moore or Dan Rather¡¦s unfounded allegations if his sole concern was re-election?

Originally posted by Alias47

but you questioned my credibility first...this logic should be applied by you as well.

I didn¡¦t challenge your credibility, I simply asked you to establish it. I did that in my first post with mention of my career choice.

Originally posted by Alias47
Unless you are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Colin Powell (or their butler) you only have partial access to the facts as well. Even the head of the CIA doesn't have all the info, or the Joint Chiefs for that matter. Especially if you are in the military. It is well known that information released to memebrs of the military is COMPLETELY biased, although may be thought to be priveledged, or completely truthful. This is one of the ways they keep a harness on morale, among other things. Noble motive? Maybe. Keeps the fighting boys happy to do their job...which, regardless of the situation or reason for the fight, is a good thing.

It sounds to me like someone has info envy and is feeling left out of the loop. Again, since you haven¡¦t got the foggiest notion of which you speak, I don¡¦t feel it is necessary to respond further. You and I will just agree that ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by Alias47
If I say WMD?? I realize that this was Bush's public reason...and his outward incentive...at least in the world theater and the U.N. discussions.

You¡¦re confusing the ¡§justification¡¨ for going to war with the ¡§purpose¡¨ for going to war. The WMD search justified our action under the auspices of the violated UN resolutions. We knew he had the weapons; inspectors had already found them. We knew he wouldn¡¦t hesitate to use them; he had already done so. We knew he would violate UN agreements; he had already done so on 18 previous occasions. THAT provided more than enough ¡§justification¡¨. The ¡§purpose¡¨ for toppling the regime are a completely different discussion with strategic implications.

Originally posted by Alias47
I am not saying we have always been attacked...and this nation definitely has a history of pre-emptive attack. Which is fine when it is warranted. I am questioning the motives and for THIS pre-emptive attack. If the only reason is to have a better foothold for future action against the neighboring countries...that is EXACTLY what Hitler did.

A foothold in the region was but one of many ¡§purposes¡¨ behind the invasion, not the sole purpose. Actually, Hitler invaded his surrounding central European neighbors because ethnically, they were German. His goal was to reunite the fragments and reestablish ¡§Old Germany¡¨ to its pre-war power. Nationalism was the original purpose behind Hitler¡¦s actions, not conquest.

Originally posted by Alias47
I believe that Bush's foreign policy has made huge backwards strides in the world community. I believe that through Bush's actions we have lost a great amount of respect in the eyes of the world.

Let¡¦s see Libya has abandoned it¡¦s WMD programs, two extremist regimes have been toppled, in 10 WEEKS we accomplished what the Red Army couldn¡¦t in 10 YEARS, Iraq is no longer a regional threat, Iran is now isolated, Syria lost it¡¦s most powerful ally, a rouge Pakistani scientist is no longer proliferating nuclear technology, and we have taken the fight to the terrorist in dozens of counties around the globe. You call that a step back??

And talk about respect, Bush has carried out every single promise that he has made. Why do you think North Korea and Iran have been desperately raising a stink since the ¡§Axis of Evil¡¨ speech? They¡¦re on the radar now, they know their next and they know this guy ain¡¦t bluffing. Bush has taken Teddy Roosevelt¡¦s ¡§carry a big stick¡¨ to a whole new level! Why do the Western European powers resent us? Because those former world powers no longer have even the slightest say in world events and are powerless to challenge U.S. resolve.

Originally posted by Alias47
I still haven't seen a strong link between Iraq and Global Terror. If you say that the suicide bombings in Iraq are terrorist incedents...that is completely unacceptable. These were incurred due to our military takeover of their way of life.
When does the victim become the terrorist?
Like the child abuse victim that beats his kids.
I ask you, do you see an end to the war on terrorism?

If you don¡¦t see the link then you have no concept of world events. Do you honestly believe that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq repeatedly bombing innocent Iraqis are in fact Iraqis?? Do you honestly believe that the goal of the Islamic extremists isn¡¦t to start a civil war between Shi¡¦a and Sunni factions throughout the Middle East in order to prevent free elections? Do you honestly believe that it was a coincident that we found several of the world¡¦s most wanted terrorists, executers of the Achille Laro crew and passengers, were found hiding in Iraq as guests of the Hussein regime?

But don¡¦t take my word for it, take their¡¦s:

Al Qaeda¡¦s number two is clearly starting to see the increasing likelihood of a Bush second term and is clearly unsettled. From the statement he issued just today:

¡§The youth must not wait for anyone and must begin resisting from now ¡X and take experience and lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and Chechnya. The interests of the Americans, British, Australians, French, Polish, Norwegians, South Koreans and Japanese are spread everywhere. We must not wait more ... or we will be devoured one country after the other."

Al Qaeda operations leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the beheader, is believed to be the author of the following report to the al Qaeda leadership. It was intercepted in Fallujah:

¡§As the days pass, our hopes grow that we will establish a Shi'i state stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and ending in the Cardboard Kingdom of the Gulf¡K..

We know for certain that these Crusader forces will disappear tomorrow or the day after. He who looks at the current situation will see the enemy's haste to constitute the army and the police, which have begun to carry out the missions assigned to them. This enemy, made up of the Shi'a filled out with Sunni agents, is the real danger that we face, for it is [made up of] our fellow countrymen, who know us inside and out. They are more cunning than their Crusader masters, and they have begun, as I have said, to try to take control of the security situation in Iraq. They have liquidated many Sunnis and many of their Ba'th Party enemies and others beholden to the Sunnis in an organized, studied way. They began by killing many mujahideen brothers, passing to the liquidation of scientists, thinkers, doctors, engineers, and others. I believe, and God knows best, that the worst will not come to pass until most of the American army is in the rear lines and the secret Shi'i army and its military brigades are fighting as its proxy. They are infiltrating like snakes to reign over the army and police apparatus, which is the strike force and iron fist in our Third World, and to take complete control over the economy like their tutors the Jews.

But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahideen has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.

We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.

We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad, because our enemy is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. By the Lord of the Ka'ba, [this] is suffocation and then wearing down the roads.¡¨

Do you honestly believe that there is no link between Iraq and the War on Terror? IT IS CURRENTLY GROUND ZERO OF THE CONLICT MY FRIEND!

I for one don¡¦t see an end in sight if we stop, right in the middle of the fight, pull back to our home shores, and stop taking the fight straight to them. The result? Ask the Israelis what living under the shadow of terrorism is like; they¡¦ve been doing it for nearly 50 years.

Originally posted by Alias47
As long we are taking out terrorists on a global level there will ALWAYS be someone we piss off to replace them. This is starting to sound like the Crusade's...just not cramming Christianity down their throats. The people who hate us do so because their radical religious beliefs lead them to think we are evil. We will never break them of this. These people are killing our troops because they want to be oppressed. Crazy as that sounds...it does seem to be a fact.

Not a fact, just your opinion. A short study on Islam would be very beneficial for you. If you truly want to enlighten yourself of current issues, that is the place to start. The extremist mullahs that are spurring the ¡§calls of Jihad¡¨ don¡¦t want to be oppressed, the want nothing more than to be the oppressor! There goal is to start a civil war between the Islamic factions, crush the secular government and establish a rule that strictly follows their Wahhabist beliefs.

Originally posted by Alias47
While I agree with you that it takes men on land to take ground...air combat and bombardment is the single most effective way to gain that ground easily.

Damn, your as bad as a fighter pilot! Fortunately your also just as wrong. ļ Air supremacy is simply a combat multiplier that increases the lethality of ground forces.

Originally posted by Alias47
Here is a complete casualty list for the entire Persian Gulf War:
Here are two lists for the current Operation Iraqi Freedom:See the difference between blowing the hell out of them and walking in without major air advance?

Apples and Oranges. Your attempting to compare two events as unrelated as the Civil War and the Cold War. The results in OIF and ODS were the same; complete and sweeping victory.

Originally posted by Alias47
Iran may not have many friends...but directly north is the Caspian Sea, which is as unstable as the section of the middle east below it.

It is also landlocked.

Originally posted by Alias47
How many Iraqi insurgents have you seen in Texas lately? Don't tell me it's only because we are fighting them in Iraq.

As has already been mentioned, the vast majority aren¡¦t Iraqis. Not as many as I would have if they weren¡¦t being attrited in Iraq.

Originally posted by Alias47
How many of these people can afford new clothes...much less a way to get to America to fight us.

More than you can possibly imagine. The real question is not how many could get here but how many are already here?

For those Jihadist that are still left, a second Bush term is the" worst nightmare scenerio". He has sent this nation's full military power down on them, not once, but twice. With each safe harbor that falls, their chances for escape grow slimmer and slimmer. Crusades? Call it what ever you want. After all we didn't start this fight, but it is certainly in our best interest to finish it. If we don't, I fear our children will be plagued by it.............

Originally posted by brucestephenson
Here are my plans for this weekend:

First, I am taking my wife out to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911". After that we are stopping at a bookseller to buy President Bill Clinton's book "My Life." I can't tell you how good I feel about giving my hard earned money to these two great men and their causes.

so you like supporting a slanderer and an adulterer bruce

Neither man if elected will choose to weaken the military, PERIOD. Think about it, why would they. Kerry has already said he plans on adding two divisions.

That being said, what disturbs me the most about Bush's plan(s), is the fact that he is going to bankrupt just about every social program there is while trying to accomplish his goals. If you as president decide that we just have to go invade Iraq and spend $200 billion to do it, why in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are you giving people tax refunds? Why are you cutting taxes for corporations? By doing so, Bush has run us so far into deficit spending that it will literally take decades to get out.

I can live with the decision to go, (I don't agree w/ it, or it's supposed reason), but I can't live with the fact that we'll be paying for it for the next 100 years because of the way it's been done.

I think the last debate was a minor victory for Kerry. But, what kept it a minor debate was the fact that there cannot be a major difference in the way that Iraq must now be handled and both men know that. We broke it, and now we have to fix it.

The next debate, the one covering domestic policy, will be very different. Bush swears the economy is "strong and getting stronger." He will not waiver from that veiwpoint. Even when presented with the facts that he has lost more jobs than any president in the last 75 years, he swears he's done a good job. This election will come down to who actually shows up to vote. If it's the rich, the religous right, and for some reason I haven't figured out yet, the old folks, Bush wins. If Kerry is successful in convincing the rest of the people, that this country really can't afford another 4 years of mortgaging the future, and that they really do need to get out and vote, he will. The poor and underpriviledged greatly outweigh the rich. Unfortunately, the first group is usually more able/willing to vote.

Neither man is Hitler, but Bush's tunnel vision, and unwillingness to admit even the smallest mistake ever, will lead us down a path that will futher alienate us from the rest of the world. I know many of you think that the US can stand on it's own, and the rest of the world be damned. But, I think the events of 9/11 prove that's not a very good idea. No matter how strong we are, we cannot make ourselves invunerable. His domestic policies benefit a very small portion of our society, and will eventually cripple our economy even worse than it already is.

Originally posted by roge night
so you like supporting a slanderer and an adulterer bruce

Better than a coward and couple warmongers.