Start packing. Make shore you take all the liberal anti-Americans with you. Special Micheal More. ...Oh I recommend France. Nice place.

 

Alright, I've written about this before elsewhere so I'm just going to post it here cut'n'paste.


The War in Iraq:

When people defend Bush this is one of...if not THE primary example given...followed closely by a multitude of what-if scenarios involving low-yield nuclear weapons (ala Cheney). The war on terror has many faces and many names, and one of those names is Sadaam Hussein. I'm not arguing this point, nor do I think Kerry was arguing this. The question that has arisen is where on the list Hussein should fall in regards to gauging and then engaging threats. It has been reviewed, researched, and scrutinized by international intelligence agencies, as well as our own...and subsequently confirmed, that Sadaam's connection to Al-Qaeda and in particular, to 9-11 is slim to nil. His WMD proliferation and Nuclear proliferation programs? Nowhere to be found. Hussein's primary reason for being a threat is his willingness to funnel terrorists, their money, and their weapons, into and out of his territory...allowing them to do what he is incapable of doing himself under such scrutiny. This is a genuine threat.

But look at the rest of the map and compare the level of urgency given to Iraq with the rest of the world. North Korea has The Bomb...they are making more, and they have the ability to use them. Look from Iraq, right next door to Iran, whose nuclear proliferation program has been growing exponentially. Look at the countless number of unsecured nuclear weapons and weapon making materials littering the former Soviet Block. Now tell me...where is that potential low-yield nuclear bomb coming through our leaky borders going to originate from? Meanwhile Bin Laden is still out there, looking for a means to procure one. We're taking on the middle-man in Iraq and not really strangling the source. This war is not a direct Al-Qaeda response.

But all of this is hindsight since we are already there, dying for the cause, and we're holding this burden squarely on our shoulders in both fighting and funding. Our coalition is questionable, with those other nations that supplied troops lending numbers that are, in some cases, fewer than the number of American fatalities to this date. Bush repeatedly mentioned Poland in the first debate, and not 24 hours later the Polish government announced that they are bringing their troops (all 2460 of them ) home over the rest of the year stating "Two years is enough". Sheesh...when your "grand coalition of nations" starts pulling itself out....and their numbers could be counted in the dozens for some of those countries? Something is iffy at best.

 

We went to war with iraq because of the U.N. treaty. The WMD's and terrorist ties were just adding fuel to the fire.(And there wasn't a single person disagreeing with the intelligence) If we allowed Suddam to continue to defy the U.S. and the rest of the world, he would feel free to do as he pleased. France germany and russia all had ties to Iraq and thats why they didn't want to help.

As for the health care, Kerry's plan is idealistic. Also, i don't think anyone wants a government run health care system. We have the best in the world, thats why people from around the world come here.

Canadas hospitals suck, first hand experience.

 

But lets not forget how Sadaam acted prior to the war. His continuos refusal to abide by the stipulations governing NATO's right to inspect his properties for arms made him look very suspicious. This was a madman we're talking about, that was refusing to play by the rules that he was bound to. A madman who was not above launching an attack against the US once he had the means. This was a madman with known links to terrorists and a nation's army at his disposal. True, there are other nations with a greater capability of hurting us than Iraq had, but why would they want to? Does Korea hate us? Do they interpret their religion as saying all Americans must die? I agree that Sadaam was a middle man of sorts, but part of a war (on terrorism in this case) is to intercede and break up the middle. By eliminating the middleman, you've hopefully reduced the facilities at your opponents disposal. At this stage, that has been done, but should we leave Iraq like this? We came in and took out their government, but if we left it like that, the results could be worse than when we started. We're commited now. Unlike when Clinton pulled out of Somalia after American soldiers were killed and their bodies desecrated, Bush is in it for the long haul. I don't believe that packing up and going home will benefit our interests in the long run (and by interests, I mean our safety and well-being). War is always a cmplicated and contaversial issue, and there will always be people for it and against it. Frankly, I used to get tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on our nation trying to be the hall monitor for the entire world. But now, I understand it a little better. Thousands of innocent people died in our country due to the actions of a terrorist. Actions like these can not go un-avenged. Could these attacks been prevented? I believe so, when you consider the mastermind behind it all was offered to us after his first attempt in the 90's. But that's okay, our president at the time was too busy trying too get laid to give a shit about the security of our future. I consider the war in Iraq an oil change. Preventative maintenance, if you will.

I'm not trying to change anyones mind or disrespect their values and beliefs, but instead trying to share mine as well.



BTW, you're all wrong and I'm right.

 

Well you governmental contracted job is safe for four more years Just be careful when your firm goes to hire the products of No Child Left Behind.. Give them a test to get hired..I am sure they will pass it...but dont expect them to have core competency on basic skills that are not on the test...you know like arithmetic

 

Sparta will always trump Athens. God and Country will always trump Reason and Human Rights. Trouble with this current Fundamentalist twit outcropping is the notion that the End Time is comming anyway, this week or next year really doesn't matter, it's comming and we all have to get on God's good side before it does so that we will be the chosen ones that will live in the Kingdom of Heaven forever. (At least the other side gets a bunch of virgins in the deal.) But Carlin's got a new book out to lighten things up. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

There has been alot of good information stated in this thread... but I still think we're all right and Corey is wrong

 

Except when it comes to waffles..then I always defer to the King

 

Deficit: The CBO thinks otherwise. Even using an optimistic economic growth pattern without a cyclic downturn around 2011, we'll have a budget deficit until at least 2013. Given that Bush will certainly reward his faithful with another tax cut (or rather, making permanent the temporary ones from 2002/2003), that slides out to 2015 or beyond. That is systemic deficits.

Wars: Afghanistan was reactive (and successful), though Osama is still on the loose, last I checked. Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11/01, Osama did. Attacking a country who may attack some day is the definition of pre-emptive, and it goes against our nation's doctrine of the last 40-50 years. W's own father backed off invading Iraq 13 years ago, when he had much more justification, because he knew there was no exit strategy. W chose to pray for guidance rather than talking to his dad.

Environment: Houston is now the smoggiest city in the country - worse than LA. It wasn't 10 years ago, when Ann Richards was governor of Texas. W removed the environmental restrictions on coal and oil plants in texas and emissions skyrocketed. W's been doing the same thing nationwide for the last 4 years. Nearly all of our environmental policy is done on Executive orders - i.e. the President's cabinet decides and there's no debate. The EPA no longer has any tooth due to policy changes enacted by W. Corporate greed is the problem, but when you have a President who makes no effort to keep that destruction by greed in check, then the President is equally at fault.

Backroom policy: Not new, really. But since when do the subjects (energy companies, for example) get to write their own policy? It's no different than having a meeting with a bunch of rapists and letting them decide their punishment.