The Official US President Election Thread

[azalea]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Actually - I think cemocrats can wave the flag - the problem is they're usually in the streets burning the flag and writing articles about how we are the worst country to ever be on the face of the earth. Or haven't you read some of the liberal articles which are routinely written and published by college professors around America.

Don't forget that there are a lot of people who are neither Rep nor Dem. Libertarians are one example of a group that writes some really scathing stuff about the state of America. They may not be a contendor in the big races, but they do know how to work the media, and I know that in they are a popular party in the world of academia.
Just thought I'd mention that, because one does need to remember that when they see an article critical of America, it may be someone who doesn't share the Republican OR the Democratic party view. The same could be said for articles written from the extreme right-thinking POV.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by azalea

Don't forget that there are a lot of people who are neither Rep nor Dem. Libertarians are one example of a group that writes some really scathing stuff about the state of America. They may not be a contendor in the big races, but they do know how to work the media, and I know that in they are a popular party in the world of academia.
Just thought I'd mention that, because one does need to remember that when they see an article critical of America, it may be someone who doesn't share the Republican OR the Democratic party view. The same could be said for articles written from the extreme right-thinking POV.

The thing is - based on the article - you can tell the political leanings of the person who is writing it. I consider myself a Republitarian - so I am perfectly aware that there are Libertarians out there. The colleges are mostly filled with extreme left wing socialists though more than anything else and it comes through in their articles.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Kerry using his military record isn't the issue - it's him avoiding his anti-military record in the Senate. That is the part my brother and MANY people in the military have an issue with.

I would like to know what is wrong with being anti-war? I think that is a good thing, I want a president who will send our troops to war when it is only necessary. More importantly, if a president did send our troops to war it would be for our country's safety and not for his secret personal agenda.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I would like to know what is wrong with being anti-war? I think that is a good thing, I want a president who will send our troops to war when it is only necessary. More importantly, if a president did send our troops to war it would be for our country's safety and not for his secret personal agenda.

The secret personal agenda is your own opinion. It is a FACT that Al Qaeda and Hussein had been working on coming together. According to the 9/11 Commission report - Bin Ladin first contacted Hussein, then prior to the war - Hussein was working on setting up meetings with Bin Ladin.

There is A LOT wrong with being anti-war - you yourself said it in your next statement. Being anti-war isn't the same as being for necessary wars. Was Bosnia necessary? By the way - all the people who watched the 9/11 Farenheit movie - you might want to try catching the film that was put together by the Iraqi about the MILLIONS that Hussein had killed during the 1990's and the mass graves.

Also - I would like to point out to you that in my quote - I did NOT say "anti-war" - I said "anti-military" and I was referring to Kerry's voting record. So yes - there is a problem there. Let me repeat it so you can read it better...

Kerry using his military record isn't the issue - it's him avoiding his anti-military record in the Senate. That is the part my brother and MANY people in the military have an issue with.

A big difference there than what you responded to.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The secret personal agenda is your own opinion. It is a FACT that Al Qaeda and Hussein had been working on coming together. According to the 9/11 Commission report - Bin Ladin first contacted Hussein, then prior to the war - Hussein was working on setting up meetings with Bin Ladin.

There is A LOT wrong with being anti-war - you yourself said it in your next statement. Being anti-war isn't the same as being for necessary wars. Was Bosnia necessary? By the way - all the people who watched the 9/11 Farenheit movie - you might want to try catching the film that was put together by the Iraqi about the MILLIONS that Hussein had killed during the 1990's and the mass graves.

Also - I would like to point out to you that in my quote - I did NOT say "anti-war" - I said "anti-military" and I was referring to Kerry's voting record. So yes - there is a problem there. Let me repeat it so you can read it better...


A big difference there than what you responded to.

I'm curious as to why you are linking/associating Bush to my statement. No where in my post did I even mention his name, I was speaking in general. Simply, I want a President who only goes to war when it is approriate and that he goes to war for the right reasons.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - I would like to point out to you that in my quote - I did NOT say "anti-war" - I said "anti-military" and I was referring to Kerry's voting record. So yes - there is a problem there. Let me repeat it so you can read it better...


A big difference there than what you responded to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one were to be "anti-military" wouldn't that also mean that he would lean towards "anti-war" feelings. I believe that a military is needed when fighting a war?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I'm curious as to why you are linking/associating Bush to my statement. No where in my post did I even mention his name, I was speaking in general. Simply, I want a President who only goes to war when it is approriate and that he goes to war for the right reasons.

Maybe because when democrats make that statement - it's becuase they are always referring to the war in Iraq. It was quite plain that that was what you were referring to. At least I didn't take a word that you posted and turn into a completely different word like you did with my post - anti-war vs anti-military.

MY opinion is that Bush did go into Iraq for the right reasons - strategically it is a central point in the Middle East. With Afganistan on one side and Iraq on the other and Turkey to the north - it can put definite pressure on Iran. It may have also have been the catilist for Lybia to give up it's weapons programs. I also feel that based on what came out of the 9/11 Commission report - which supports Bush's claim that Hussein and Bin Ladin had ties - that it was a necessary war and something that should have been done long ago.

You can hide and say you aren't talking about Iraq and Bush all you want - but you clearly are. You just want to act as if I believe that Bush lied and therefore it is me who is associating your statement. The only reason why I am associating it - is because it's the usual liberal mantra for the 2004 election.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Maybe because when democrats make that statement - it's becuase they are always referring to the war in Iraq. It was quite plain that that was what you were referring to. At least I didn't take a word that you posted and turn into a completely different word like you did with my post - anti-war vs anti-military.

MY opinion is that Bush did go into Iraq for the right reasons - strategically it is a central point in the Middle East. With Afganistan on one side and Iraq on the other and Turkey to the north - it can put definite pressure on Iran. It may have also have been the catilist for Lybia to give up it's weapons programs. I also feel that based on what came out of the 9/11 Commission report - which supports Bush's claim that Hussein and Bin Ladin had ties - that it was a necessary war and something that should have been done long ago.

You can hide and say you aren't talking about Iraq and Bush all you want - but you clearly are. You just want to act as if I believe that Bush lied and therefore it is me who is associating your statement. The only reason why I am associating it - is because it's the usual liberal mantra for the 2004 election.

I'm not "hiding", in all seriousness I was simply stating my ideals for a president, I gave the reasons why I would favor an anti-war president. And please see my post above about anti-war and anti-military, theres no need to get upset over a misread. I'm also curious if you have read the Senate Intelligence Comittee's reports? What do you think of them? I could give you think the official link if you haven't read it yet... its a very interesting read.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one were to be "anti-military" wouldn't that also mean that he would lean towards "anti-war" feelings. I believe that a military is needed when fighting a war?

No it wouldn't. Because many of those things we need for defense. Now in your previous statement you said that there was nothing wrong with being anti-war and then you say - "I want a president who will send our troops to war when it is only necessary." Well if someone doesn't support the military with supplies then when war IS necessary - we don't have the equipment or personnel for it. That is a SERIOUS problem in the defense of this country.

So which is it - anti-war or "war when necessary". It seems as if you now saying that by denying the military necessary equipment that is a good thing.

Let's go through your logic here...

1) anti-war = good
2) go to war when necessary
3) anti-military=anti-war
4) military is needed when fighting a war


So let's see - Kerry has a proven record of voting down repeatedly things the military needs to operate. yet you seem to say that sometimes war is necessary and okay. yet, a military is needed when fighting a war. But yet - Kerry votes down things that support the military which then leaves our troops defenseless and the US vulnerable. I don't get it. We are in the middle of a war - and the democratic candidate has a history of not supporting the military, but yet is running on his hero status of Vietnam. I'm just confused by the liberal logic in all that I guess.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I'm not "hiding", in all seriousness I was simply stating my ideals for a president, I gave the reasons why I would favor an anti-war president.

Anti-war is AGAINST war. That's what it means. It doesn't mean - when war is necessary. It's just ANTI-war. So if you want a president who is anti-war - then you want a president who is against all war.

And please see my post above about anti-war and anti-military, theres no need to get upset over a misread. I'm also curious if you have read the Senate Intelligence Comittee's reports? What do you think of them? I could give you think the official link if you haven't read it yet... its a very interesting read.

Please supply the link.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it wouldn't. Because many of those things we need for defense. Now in your previous statement you said that there was nothing wrong with being anti-war and then you say - "I want a president who will send our troops to war when it is only necessary." Well if someone doesn't support the military with supplies then when war IS necessary - we don't have the equipment or personnel for it. That is a SERIOUS problem in the defense of this country.

So which is it - anti-war or "war when necessary". It seems as if you now saying that by denying the military necessary equipment that is a good thing.

Let's go through your logic here...

1) anti-war = good
2) go to war when necessary
3) anti-military=anti-war
4) military is needed when fighting a war


So let's see - Kerry has a proven record of voting down repeatedly things the military needs to operate. yet you seem to say that sometimes war is necessary and okay. yet, a military is needed when fighting a war. But yet - Kerry votes down things that support the military which then leaves our troops defenseless and the US vulnerable. I don't get it. We are in the middle of a war - and the democratic candidate has a history of not supporting the military, but yet is running on his hero status of Vietnam. I'm just confused by the liberal logic in all that I guess.

A few corrections, this is what I said in my original post...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one were to be "anti-military" wouldn't that also mean that he would lean towards "anti-war" feelings. I believe that a military is needed when fighting a war?

I said LEAN towards anti-war feelings, that does not mean anti-military=anti-war. Never did I say war is "ok", it never is, it is a terrible thing that should be avoided at all cost. And then current war in Iraq is not necessary, read up on the reports by Senate Intelligence Comitee, you will find that it was based on incorrect and over exaggerated information.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

A few corrections, this is what I said in my original post...



I said LEAN towards anti-war feelings, that does not mean anti-military=anti-war. Never did I say war is "ok", it never is, it is a terrible thing that should be avoided at all cost.

Hmmmm - so now you are saying that war is NEVER necessary. Confusing here - you keep going back and forth.

And then current war in Iraq is not necessary, read up on the reports by Senate Intelligence Comitee, you will find that it was based on incorrect and over exaggerated information.

I know about the information. It has also been determined that since that report came out - that Hussein HAD gone to Africa to try to buy Uranium - it just never occurred. As for the intelligence being incorrect. That wasn't Bush's fault at all. The UN, France, all of Europe, Russia who has also since come out and said that they had intelligence that Hussein was planning an attack on the US which they passed onto Bush, Clinton even came on before the war and said that all intelligence under his administration showed the Hussein had all these weapons. So it;s not like Bush lied, the intelligence was incorrect. The thing is - it wasn't only for WMD which I supported the war - so it's not that big of an issue for me that they didn't. There were several reasons I suported the war.

One thing I don't understand was where was everyone with the war in Bosnia - that was a civil war. Why weren't people so against that? There was a lot less at stake there and it concerned the US very little. Eurpope could have handled it if it started spreading across the border. Why didn't we just do sanctions there? As far as I'm concerned = there was a lot more at stake with Hussein and iraq than wtih Bosnia and therefore I don't see why liberals accept the one - but are against the other. The only thing I can think of is that one was by Clinton and the other was by Bush.

By the way - I was for the war in Bonsnia because of the ethnic cleansing. I think we should have gone in there beforehand. It seemed to be Hitler all over again as Europe watched on. I also was against us pailing out of Somalia - which the 9/11 commision report says Al Qaeda was behind.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Anti-war is AGAINST war. That's what it means. It doesn't mean - when war is necessary. It's just ANTI-war. So if you want a president who is anti-war - then you want a president who is against all war.

Please supply the link.

You're agrument is based on an idealistic attitude. There is no way that wars will cease to exist. You are exploiting my words to your favor. By anti-war I mean, do everything you can to resolve the issue before relying on violence. That means, I only would only favor a war in extreme circumstance, such as WWII with Hitler's concentration camps. And don't give me this liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein's cruel tryanny. The U.S. didn't give one damn about it, until we were attacked on our soil. Then it became an "important" issue. We knew of his cruelty long before our country was attacked, did we go to war to stop it then, no.

heres the link....

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hmmmm - so now you are saying that war is NEVER necessary. Confusing here - you keep going back and forth.

No, what I said is it should be avoid at all cost. That doesn't mean never, it would be better if you concentrated on the points I'm trying to make, instead of trying to manipulate my words.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I know about the information. It has also been determined that since that report came out - that Hussein HAD gone to Africa to try to buy Uranium - it just never occurred. As for the intelligence being incorrect. That wasn't Bush's fault at all. The UN, France, all of Europe, Russia who has also since come out and said that they had intelligence that Hussein was planning an attack on the US which they passed onto Bush, Clinton even came on before the war and said that all intelligence under his administration showed the Hussein had all these weapons. So it;s not like Bush lied, the intelligence was incorrect. The thing is - it wasn't only for WMD which I supported the war - so it's not that big of an issue for me that they didn't. There were several reasons I suported the war.

Those reports blamed the CIA for the false information not Bush, no where in my post did I mention Bush, or that it was his fault. So why are you associating Bush with the blame?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

You're agrument is based on an idealistic attitude. There is no way that wars will cease to exist. You are exploiting my words to your favor. By anti-war I mean, do everything you can to resolve the issue before relying on violence.

And how many years had we tried dealing with Hussein? I mean come on - France and Germany were against the war because they had dealings with Hussein. The UN had underhanded dealings with the oil for food program. It's sort of funny how some many people want to point at bush - yet don't want to state the motivations with these groups against the war.

We did do a lot - kept giving Hussein ONE more chance. Well the chances ran out - that was it - time up.

That means, I only would only favor a war in extreme circumstance, such as WWII with Hitler's concentration camps. And don't give me this liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein's cruel tryanny. The U.S. didn't give one damn about it, until we were attacked on our soil. Then it became an "important" issue. We knew of his cruelty long before our country was atatcked, did we go to war to stop it then, no.

NO - we didn't do things before - neither did the wonderful UN. But when Clinton started bombing Iraq - I felt we should have gone to war then. As for World War II that had NOTHING to do with the concentration camps either. So don't claim that we went in there for that. Bosnia also had nothing to do with the concentration camps - Europe was afraid the violence would spill over into their countries. Bosnia was a preemptive war.

The key reason I support the war in Iraq is becuase I think iraq is a big piece of the puzzle in combatting terrorism long term. The Middle East has to change and there are multiple things that have to be done. Ira is one part of that puzzle. We can no deal with Iran - without having first dealt with Iraq. We can not deal with Saudi Arabia - without dealing with Iraq. And I'm not talking about war with Iran or Saudi Arabia - I'm talking about putting pressure on them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

No, what I said is it should be avoid at all cost. That doesn't mean never, it would be better if you concentrated on the points I'm trying to make, instead of trying to manipulate my words.

I'm trying to manipulate your words. You just keep changing what you say. Anti-war to me means against war - just like anti-abortion means against abortion. It doesn't mean halfway or partial support.

Those reports blamed the CIA for the false information not Bush, no where in my post did I mention Bush, or that it was his fault. So why are you associating Bush with the blame?

Well then you are the ONLY democrat I guess that isn't trying to blame Bush - amazing. I wonder - did you see the democratic Convention? I did it - "bush lied" - didn't you hear it? Oh finally - we have a democrat on record saying that Bush didn't lie.

There are very many reasons why I will not support Kerry and all of them deal with the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, his attitude toward the UN and Europe. I will not have a president who feels that the UN and Europe (particularly France and Germany) should be dictating our national security and responses.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And how many years had we tried dealing with Hussein? I mean come on - France and Germany were against the war because they had dealings with Hussein. The UN had underhanded dealings with the oil for food program. It's sort of funny how some many people want to point at bush - yet don't want to state the motivations with these groups against the war.

We did do a lot - kept giving Hussein ONE more chance. Well the chances ran out - that was it - time up.

NO - we didn't do things before - neither did the wonderful UN. But when Clinton started bombing Iraq - I felt we should have gone to war then. As for World War II that had NOTHING to do with the concentration camps either. So don't claim that we went in there for that.

Never did I claim that we got involved in WWII because of the concentration camps. I was using that as an example of an extreme circumstance that I would be favor of a war, to put an end to those mass killings. Please read my statements fully before making such assumptions.

I find it funny that George Bush is using the liberation of the Iraqi to his full advantage and put his war into a "positive light". However, it is complete garbage.. If the U.S. really cared about liberating the poeple of Iraq, George Bush Senior should have done it during the Persian Gulf War. That was over a decade ago, it just goes to show what a phony George Bush is, because the truth is he didn't give a damn and neither did the United States. I also find it highly amusing that conservatives like to blame the terrorist attacks on Clinton and democrats. I would like to take time to "honor" (if that is an appropriate word) the man who more than anyone else made those attacks a reality: George Bush Senior. Isn't it ironic that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, in any other era, this invasion would have gone unnoticed, as the actions of one desert regime against another would not have had any effect upon the world scene. However, because of the fact that a huge portion of the world’s crude oil comes from the Persian Gulf region, that was enough to make politicians panic, as people began to assess the possibilities of Saddam Hussein having control over that oil.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm trying to manipulate your words. You just keep changing what you say. Anti-war to me means against war - just like anti-abortion means against abortion. It doesn't mean halfway or partial support.

Well then you are the ONLY democrat I guess that isn't trying to blame Bush - amazing. I wonder - did you see the democratic Convention? I did it - "bush lied" - didn't you hear it? Oh finally - we have a democrat on record saying that Bush didn't lie.

There are very many reasons why I will not support Kerry and all of them deal with the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, his attitude toward the UN and Europe. I will not have a president who feels that the UN and Europe (particularly France and Germany) should be dictating our national security and responses.

No, I am not changing my words, I said I was anti-war. I never made it concise nor did I ever ellaborate about my ideas on war. You interpretted what I said literally, anti-war does mean against all wars, but that is too idealistic. I choose the word anti-war to describe my views for the lack of a better word. What you are doing is nit-picking, instead of focusing my main argument, very clever.

I'm not a democrat, I'm a liberal, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Never did I claim that we got involved in WWII because of the concentration camps. I was using that as an example of an extreme circumstance that I would be favor of a war, to put an end to those mass killings. Please read my statements fully before making such assumptions.

I do read your statements completely. You just imply certain things. I just wanted to point out that WWII had nothing to do with the concentration camps. Hitler could have had all the concentration camps he wanted - as long as he didn't attack Poland. Europe didn't care about the Jews.

I find it funny that George Bush is using the liberation of the Iraqi to his full advantage and put his war into a "positive light". However, it is complete garbage.. If the U.S. really cared about liberating the poeple of Iraq, George Bush Senior should have done it during the Persian Gulf War. That was over a decade ago, it just goes to show what a phony George Bush is, because the truth is he didn't give a damn and neither did the United States.

You might want to do some research on that - because George Bush 41 DID have plans to continue and take out Hussein. It was world opinion that stopped him. He had the Shi'a Muslims ready in uprising and that is why they were massacred was because of the plan to overthrow him after the war in Kuwait. We were going to continue onto Baghdad.

I also find it highly amusing that conservatives like to blame the terrorist attacks on Clinton and democrats. I would like to take time to "honor" (if that is an appropriate word) the man who more than anyone else made those attacks a reality: George Bush Senior. Isn't it ironic that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, in any other era, this invasion would have gone unnoticed, as the actions of one desert regime against another would not have had any effect upon the world scene. However, because of the fact that a huge portion of the world’s crude oil comes from the Persian Gulf region, that was enough to make politicians panic, as people began to assess the possibilities of Saddam Hussein having control over that oil.

Al Qaeda has many reasons that they use to justify their actions against the US - hardly do they stem from the Gulf War. You might want to read the history of Al Qaeda and bin Ladin. The thing is - Clinton kept letting bin Ladin off the hook and following world opinion - that is where the problem is. We had our national defence ruled before by world opinion - I think we should have learned our lesson by now.

As for Hussein controlling the oil - that would have been a world catastrophe. You can ignore the importance of oil if you want - but it exists and it is real. Oil has been a political factor in the Middle East way before the US ever got involved.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

No, I am not changing my words, I said I was anti-war. I never made it concise nor did I ever ellaborate about my ideas on war. You interpretted what I said literally, anti-war does mean against all wars, but that is too idealistic. I choose the word anti-war to describe my views for the lack of a better word. What you are doing is nit-picking, instead of focusing my main argument, very clever.

I am focusing on your argument. You kept going back and forth between anti-war and necessary war and then Kerry leaning toward being anti-war and you actually went so far to defend his anti-military record in the Senate. You know damn well that the democrats don't want to discuss that because he needs the moderates to believe he can actually support the US in this war and that he's not going to fold. I believe he will fold though if he was elected.

I am glad that you agree that being anti-war is idealistic. Too bad most liberals are idealistic instead of looking at the facts of the world.

I'm not a democrat, I'm a liberal, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush.

As most liberals/democrats hate kerry.