Strange thing about Iraq

[clarky003]

hate is a strong word, but most peeps around the world dislike Bush ..seriously I dont anyone who supports the war ...not my neighbours not my parents not my co-workers ..even my cousins in spain dont believe the justification behind the war

thats good to hear, because in truth it seems there really was no justification in the first place, just paranoia, that spread like wildfire after 9/11

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

What you Republicans have to get is that the tougher crowd in this election is the Arabs. They won't be convinced that Bush is going to be a good President, and they'll bomb you if they're not convinced.

The GOP understands better than anyone that there are those in the world who would use terrorist tactics and that they must be stopped.

 

[CptStern]

thats good to hear, because in truth it seems there really was no justification in the first place, just paranoia, that spread like wildfire after 9/11

9/11 was the perfect excuse ...documents show that they (neo cons -reps) were drawing up plans shortly before Bush was sworn in as president


someday someone will write a book called:

Election 2000: the hijacking of a nation



I think that sounds pretty spiffy :E

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

9/11 was the perfect excuse ...documents show that they (neo cons -reps) were drawing up plans shortly before Bush was sworn in as president


someday someone will write a book called:

Election 2000: the hijacking of a nation



I think that sounds pretty spiffy :E

We have plans to defeat NK, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and probably many more... This is nothing new and it's prudent planning when you have known enemies.

 

[CptStern]

True it didn't work in Iraq... I wish Saadam would have cowed to the pressure from the US & UN... But he didn't.

We've had losses in Iraq but I don't think we're losing in Iraq... The interim Govt is having problems but they are working the issues... Sadr said recently he wants his forces to switch to a politcal party... That's great news. I hope he does it.

I don't think it would bother you if Iraq turned out to be a great success in the end... I'm pushing for that.

depends on prespective

iraq's pm is a terrorist (bombed cafes in the 70's killed students and military in Iraq, exiled to London, became informant to the CIA) and was on the cia payroll; just a matter of time before he becomes the next saddam ...it's happened before in iraq it'll happen again

I wish saddam had never recieved US aid ..one of his opponents would have killed him decades ago

 

[Sprafa]

The GOP understands better than anyone that there are those in the world who would use terrorist tactics and that they must be stopped.

You're looking at it all wrong.... Bush can have all the policies he wants, the Arab World doesn't likes him and the odds are that with Kerry in power the Arabs will get a little more calm and not send their children to a training camp....

 

[Neutrino]

The GOP understands better than anyone that there are those in the world who would use terrorist tactics and that they must be stopped.

I would tend to debate that statement based on their performance prior to 9/11.

Before that tradegy, the Bush administration's actions tend to show that they didn't understand that fact very well at all.

 

[clarky003]

Sky One Monday, New series at 21:00

'Conspiracies'

features Iraq, and focus's on the certain amounts of evil in America (im guessing corporation's )

everyone other than the Kletus's of the world want answer's.

not very often programs, let alone a series like this gets onto mainstream TV, let alone Skyone.

 

[^Ben]

You notice hes like "PARIS DECIDES!" Ohhhhh the boogie men from France decide booooooh we don't like france.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You notice hes like "PARIS DECIDES!" Ohhhhh the boogie men from France decide booooooh we don't like france.

Huh? Are you saying that you hate the french? Or that you like the french and are opposed to others hating them? I can't understand what you're trying to say.

???

 

[Mechagodzilla]

hehe some think a sling shot and a handful of marbles are WMD!

Maybe by Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush means weapons that destroy things that have mass? In that case, Iraq is full of WMDs!

Ya, that's one of the things that really scares me. If he won't admit we were wrong to invade Iraq then what's to stop him from using the "preventive war" excuse to attack any number of other countries that he sees as a threat to us.

I think it's good for some other countries to fear that very thing...

I hate to say it, but what do we call attacking people who didn't do anything yet in order to invoke fear-based military advantage?

Hint: It starts with a "T" and ends in "errorism".

Actually, 'Errorism' would be a good word to describe Bush foreign policy. I've coined a phrase!

 

[^Ben]

I meant he makes out that it's only the french that decide what's going on at the UN. Because ya know freedom fries :|

Not saying i don't like the French.

 

[seinfeldrules]

'Errorism' would be a good word to describe Bush foreign policy.

Sigh. Apparently no lesson was learned after WWII. I'm glad a majority of Americans learned at least.

 

[Sprafa]

I'm watching the RNC. Drones, robots, fanatics, whatever, this just shows the World can't be dependent of American for much longer, power is driving the USA nuts.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Drones, robots, fanatics, whatever

And I suppose you said the same thing about the DNC, right?

And we are the power hungry people? How much money did your country give to fight AIDs?

 

[Sprafa]

And I suppose you said the same thing about the DNC, right?

And we are the power hungry people? How much money did your country give to fight AIDs?

I didn't watch the DNC, but I suppose it wasn't all that different. People are getting too believing of propaganda and too lazy to find the truth.

My President was one of the few to go to an AIDS UN initiave proposal. He's still praised for that, most of the rest were African representatives.

I'm not saying that the Adminstrations are evil and greedy, I'm saying the USA had their time and must leave the top spot for someone else. The people has passed corruption point.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm saying the USA had their time and must leave the top spot for someone else. The people has passed corruption point.

You know, like the reasons or not, the USA has freed 25 million people in Iraq and millions more in Afghanistan. All reasons aside, that is quite an accomplishment and should be commended, instead people feel that Iraqis would feel more secure under Saddam. Are you kidding me? We give more money to fight AIDs than any other country in the world. We are the bad guys? We defended Europe against the USSR during the Cold War. We are the bad guys? We defended Europe and Asia during WWII. We are the bad guys? We fought genocide in Serbia and Bosnia. We are the bad guys? Sure we have our faults, but what country doesnt. Are you suggesting China take the top spot? I'm sure their record on human rights makes them perfect canidates. They showed their true colors during the Tianamen (sp?) Square fiasco. We are too often portrayed as the bad guy, but our bright side is overlooked. It is a harsh and unfair reality.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Sigh. Apparently no lesson was learned after WWII. I'm glad a majority of Americans learned at least.

I'm talking about Bush's foreign policy. What does WWII have to do with it?

And what was the lesson of WWII anyways? That we should invade smaller countries in case they might eventually invent nazism?

And I actually think errorism is a good descriptor.

Bush successfully removed Saddam from power by mistake!
He successfully liberated Afghanistan, but only as a result of his inability to stop Osama.

Call me a pessimist, but I'm more concerned about the 'mistake' part than the 'success' part.
He's using the power of being very wrong to defeat evil!
Bush's foreign policy has him bumble his way towards solving the problem like some sort of modern-day Inspector Gadget. Only without all the non-lethal weapons and no comedy whatsoever.

It's like if Bush shot a guy on the street who he suspected of murder, and it later turned out he shot a big-time drug dealer who had never killed anyone.

Everyone's like "yay you killed the dealer" instead of "wait a minute, he killed that guy under false pretenses and only got away with it because the victim was a bad guy anyway. Who else will he shoot, and when will his luck run out?"

Now, Saddam was bad, but Bush managed to get rid of him only by mistakenly claiming that he was much worse.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Call me a pessimist, but I'm more concerned about the 'mistake' part than the 'success' part.

Yeah, you're right. Freeing 25 million people from a brutal dictator is surely the worst part of all this. Thats just sad.

I'm talking about Bush's foreign policy. What does WWII have to do with it?

And what was the lesson of WWII anyways?

WWII has everything to do with it. In WWII we waited much too long to confront a growing power in Germany. A few years later, no individual country in the world had the power to stop him. Now, Iraq was surely not going to challenge us militarily (conventional) any time soon, but most Western intelligence agencies (British, Russian, and US) believed he had WMD and was developing nuclear weapons. If we had waited too long, and the WMD had fallen into the hands of terrorists, then we could of had a calamity on our hands. What if NYC was under a mushroom cloud 2 years from now? What would the response be? I know, because it is what people use for everything else, blame Bush. That is why I would rather deal with Iran and N. Korea now before it is too late. Sure call me a hawk and yada yada, but I can take it knowing that the US did what was right by protecting me and my countrymen before it was too late.

his inability to stop Osama.

What about Clinton? Wasnt it his inability as well? Was Bush expected to defend against such a well thought out plan 9 months into his Presidency? No, such an event cannot be pinned upon a single President, if any at all. It was a breakdown of our entire Gov't under multiple administrations (Clinton and Bush). If you cannot see that, then you are too blinded by bias to make any decisions.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, you're right. Freeing 25 million people from a brutal dictator is surely the worst part of all this. Thats just sad.

When did I say that freeing the people was bad?

My point up there was rather clearly that freeing people is great, but Bush freed them with a plan to get WMDs away from Saddam.

Freeing people wasn't the point of the mission. It was barely even mentioned as a reason for invading. The fact that the troops are still there trying hard to retain order well past the declaration of victory shows just how little planning went into the actual 'freeing' part of the mission.

The fact is, it's an after-effect of one of the largest failures of military intelligence in a long, long time. Not one single WMD, and yet somehow a success. The US invaded a tiny country in order to save itself from absolutely nothing.

And the fact that it was the largest, most powerful country in the world that mistakenly went to war killing thousands, is frankly rather frightening to most people who aren't safely inside US borders.

Sure, Bush freed all those people. But he didn't mean to.

WWII has everything to do with it. In WWII we waited much too long to confront a growing power in Germany. A few years later, no individual country in the world had the power to stop him.

Of course, the message there is also that alliances between countries are the best weapon against even the largest rogue country. Maybe the lesson is that we should value the importance in uniting the nations or something like that. Some sort of United Nations...

Nah, let's just have the biggest country in the world do everything for us while we become dependent on them. After all, WWII taught us that only the US is good enough to save us. We don't even need to think.

And before someone asks, that last bit was sarcasm.

But just imagine if the US put it's money towrds making the UN work again, rather than distancing itself from it. I'd call that happy.

What about Clinton? Wasnt it his inability as well? Was Bush expected to defend against such a well thought out plan 9 months into his Presidency? No, such an event cannot be pinned upon a single President, if any at all. It was a breakdown of our entire Gov't under multiple administrations (Clinton and Bush). If you cannot see that, then you are too blinded by bias to make any decisions.

Well, as I remember it, Clinton was criticised by the Repubs for spending way too much on counter-terrorism efforts. Especially on some small, non-threatening group called Al-Queda.

Before 9/11, he had spent more on fighting terrorism than any other president in history. He also prevented many attacks all across the world through this odd obsession of his.

And it's been pretty well established that Bush was warned many months in advance of an attack by Osama bin Laden using hijacked airplanes. By people who used to work for Clinton that were carried over into the new administartion.

Maybe he could have come up with a plan during one of his many vacations?

 

[seinfeldrules]

US put it's money towrds making the UN work again

Why should we fix the problem we didnt cause? Its because of countries that are unwilling to perform any military action to secure freedom and peace around the world. With the people I have encountered in this forum I am not suprised by this anymore.

The fact is, it's an after-effect of one of the largest failures of military intelligence

Ahhhh there you go. You finally blamed it on somebody other than Bush. I agree with the bold part.

The US invaded a tiny country in order to save itself from absolutely nothing.

Refer to the bold statement above. Remember, Russia, US, and UK.

Sure, Bush freed all those people. But he didn't mean to

He also didnt directly mean to cause Libya to drop their WMD program, but it happened anways (yet another thing overlooked by the world in their quest to blame Bush). Dont always look at the direct results.

And the fact that it was the largest, most powerful country in the world that mistakenly went to war killing thousands, is frankly rather frightening to most people who aren't safely inside US borders.

All I can say is that 99% of countries are worrying over false pretenses. The only countries that should be worried right now are NK and Iran. Do you blame us for putting pressure on them? Would you rather wait for another terrorist attack against the US, or another Western country? (Iran has been known to support terrorists, not the same as Iraq).

My point up there was rather clearly that freeing people is great, but Bush freed them with a plan to get WMDs away from Saddam

Can you at least give him credit for this? Doesnt he deserve praise for leading the charge to free 25 million people?

Well, as I remember it, Clinton was criticised for spending way to much on counter-terrorism efforts. Especially on some small, non-threatening group called Al-Queda.

Before 9/11, he had spent more on fighting terrorism than any other president in history. He also prevented many attacks all across the world through this odd obsession of his.

And it's been pretty well established that Bush was warned many months in advance of an attack by Osama bin Laden using hijacked airplanes. By people who used to work for Clinton that were carried over into the new administartion.

Maybe he could have come up with a plan during one of his many vacations?

Oh come on, your post was going good until this edit. It ruined all credibility. Clinton did spend money on terrorism, but that was because he was the first President who didnt have to deal with the USSR. I cant remember any criticism about him spending money on terrorism, that is a load of bull. Do you blame Clinton for the African bombings? How about the USS Cole? I dont, and that is why I dont blame either him or Bush for 9/11. Finally, thousands of threats are received everyday by the FBI and CIA. How are they supposed to know what was the correct information? Who could of imagined a scenario such as 9/11? That is a ridiculous way, to again, blame Bush for an event out of his control. Oh and every President takes 'vacations' do you think they actually relax during them? Ha, that is a joke. What is different about doing work in the White House rather than Camp David or Texas? Really, lets be serious.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, it was a millitary intelligence failure.
The biggest part of it was that the Commander-In-Chief, the highest ranking official in the US military, decided that he didn't need any gal-darned evidence outside some circumstantial stuff.

I agree with the bold part.

If bush is really so concerned about freeing people, why not go to Sudan? There's thousands dying there right now, with many millions forced into homelessness.

Do you blame us for putting pressure on them?

Yes, I do. Neither of them have done anything to you yet. It's internationally illegal to attack a country before they do anything to you. Threatening to attack is pretty bad too for that same reason.

"We'll attack you before you can even become capable of possibly threatening us in the future, and even if we find no evidence of a threat after we overthrow you, we're still going to be considered right by our own people" is not a good diplomatic stance.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh come on, your post was going good until this edit. It ruined all credibility. Clinton did spend money on terrorism, but that was because he was the first President who didnt have to deal with the USSR. I cant remember any criticism about him spending money on terrorism, that is a load of bull. Do you blame Clinton for the African bombings? How about the USS Cole? I dont, and that is why I dont blame either him or Bush for 9/11. Finally, thousands of threats are received everyday by the FBI and CIA. How are they supposed to know what was the correct information? Who could of imagined a scenario such as 9/11? That is a ridiculous way, to again, blame Bush for an event out of his control. Oh and every President takes 'vacations' do you think they actually relax during them? Ha, that is a joke. What is different about doing work in the White House rather than Camp David or Texas? Really, lets be serious.

The most vacations in history, all in his brief time in office? And he was warned repeatedly.
Like I said, mistakes are made, but they are made less when you're not out hunt'n armadilloes on your spacious ranch.

I'm getting tired of you.
I'm not losing credibility. You're just gaining more and more anti-rest-of the world arrogance. Making excuses for the huge mistakes.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If bush is really so concerned about freeing people, why not go to Sudan? There's thousands dying there right now, with many millions forced into homelessness

Well, why doesnt the UN go there? The US is a little preoccupied defending ourselves right now.

The biggest part of it was that the Commander-In-Chief, the highest ranking official in the US military, decided that he didn't need any gal-darned evidence outside some circumstantial stuff.

George Tenet called it, referring to WMD, "a slam dunk". Sounds real circumstantial considering the Russians and Brits backed him up. Does Bush have some sort of psychic power that allows him to disregard this intelligence? I thought we were being realistic, blaming Bush for intelligence failures is not.

Yes, I do. Neither of them have done anything to you yet.

Germany didnt attack France before the outbreak of WWII. Would you blame France for taking out Hitler before the war ever began?

I'm getting tired of you. I'm not losing credibility. You're just gaining more and more anti-rest-of the world arrogance.

I think you tire of debate because you refuse to look at the opposite side of the spectrum. The more you look into it, the more you are angered because it makes sense. I have no anti-rest of the world arrogance. I respect most countries and most people around the world. I think the anti-Americanism is the more important issue (I'm not referring to you specifically). You seem to dodge many points I make in your arguments, and yet you tire of me? Anyways, I am off to bed. I look forward to your responses sometime in the future if you are up to it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

George Tenet called it, referring to WMD, "a slam dunk".

I'm tired of wasting my time here. George Tenet can call it whatever he wants. It's circumstantial evidence. If it wasn't, why were no actual weapons ever found by anyone ever?

No motive, no weapon, no threat.
The UN knew that basic fact. George ignored it.

 

[Foxtrot]

I'm tired of wasting my time here. George Tenet can call it whatever he wants. It's circumstantial evidence. If it wasn't, why were no actual weapons ever found by anyone ever?

No motive, no weapon, no threat.
The UN knew that basic fact. George ignored it.

No weapons were ever found in Iraq? That is news to me.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The UN knew that basic fact.

Then why did they send in inspectors? Wow, really a 'fact' huh?

It's circumstantial evidence.

Thats not what the President was informed, hence "Slam dunk".

why were no actual weapons ever found by anyone ever?

My guess is that they were moved to Syria in the weeks and days preluding the war. Hell, thats where his sons were headed until they were turned away at the very last minute.

 

[Neutrino]

No weapons were ever found in Iraq? That is news to me.

He meant no WMD's. And no, WMD's were never found in Iraq. I hope you were kidding or trying intentionally misunderstand what he meant by "weapons".

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Where was the resistance when Saddam was in charge? Now that the US is there, we've got resistance movements appearing every five minutes. According to New York Times, all of western Iraq is under rebel command. The members of the new Iraq government there have mostly been assassinated or kidnapped.

But no such resistance was around during Saddam's rule... it's almost as if the Iraqis wholeheartedly supported Saddam. You know, even a badass dictator needs support. He needs an army and maybe some politicians and other people. If the resistance in Iraq can take on the US military, it seems unlikely that Saddam's army was a deterrent againts rebellion.

On top of that, we've got rogue terrorists kidnapping and murdering anyone who has the wrong skin pigment. Some Finnish businessmen were murdered just for being white. Apparently, the Iraq resistance feels that they can get along without trade, commerce or diplomacy. Allah will no doubt provide them with food, shelter and technology. Or whatever.

Why don't we all just leave Iraq alone. If they like living under an insane dictator, so be it. Maybe they'll discover democracy and sanity within the next five hundred years. Or not.

Western occupation has not always been their friend, anyplace we occupy in the middle east will see resistence, setting your television to cnn for over 5 min. will uncover this.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

He meant no WMD's. And no, WMD's were never found in Iraq. I hope you were kidding or trying intentionally misunderstand what he meant by "weapons".

you forgot about Weapons of Mass Destruction related program activities

OH NOESZ!!!11oneeone

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hey, I'm back!

Then why did they send in inspectors? Wow, really a 'fact' huh?

They sent in the inspectors to make sure that the US actually had a reason to go to war. The entire point of the inspectors if to discover the facts, and the fact that they discovered was that there were no WMDs, and that Bush's claims appeared incorrect. Bush went to war anyways. Can you not see a problem with that?

Thats not what the President was informed, hence "Slam dunk".

Okay, so Tenet called it a Slam Dunk. Good for him. Now, what does that mean? The only evidence I've heard of is testimony from people who wanted Saddam out of office, and that they saw some pipes that they assumed were for processing nuclear materials with a centrifuge which turned out (after the attack) to be useful only for making weak rockets.

The United states, in all it's power, could not find a single weapon to justify a war based on destroying the weapons. They might as well have made a war against the Sasquatch or UFOes. There's certainly more evidence of them. And they pose about as much of a threat, if not more, to US soil.

Do you know of any more evidence that I might have missed?
Please tell me exactly what evidence of WMDs there as that could realistically justify a war against WMDs.

(And I mean by the standards at the time. Today, George is proud that he took out a country that may have had the intention of eventually getting WMDs. About 50 countries fit his description.)

It's a slam-dunk of crappy, circumstantial, and just plain incorrect evidence.

Maybe Tenet should tell Bush that evidence of North Korean Atomic Robots is "A pie in the hole!" To which Bush would say: "Yee-haw, let's pre-emptive strike them too! That'll scare Iran!"

My guess is that they were moved to Syria in the weeks and days preluding the war. Hell, thats where his sons were headed until they were turned away at the very last minute.

See, that's all we have as evidence now. I guess maybe Saddam moved the weapons to Syria. Yeah, that's it.

If Saddam had such a huge and threatening weapons program, do you really think he could remove all trace of it, without anyone ever knowing, by transporting it all over the border and into a different country in only a few day's time?

And what would that gain him? Because the US attacked him anyways, even without any evidence of WMDs. He might as well have used them to try and stop the attackers. If the weapons existed, of course.

 

[zencat]

fact is, iraq was never a national security threat. turns out they had no weapons of mass destruction and they were allowing us to inspect.

north korea on the other hand was definitely a national security threat. they admitted to having nukes and even shot a test missle over japan [one of our allies] to taunt us and prove their power. there are also massive human rights violations going on in north korea, from political imprisonment to execution and torture for dissent. they claimed to have missles that could reach LA.

and now look whats going on in the sudan. its genocide. very similar to what happened in rwanda. and its fully supported by the sudanese government. yet the US does nothing.

you know what north korea and the sudan have in common? neither one have any natural resources to be plundered.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I missed this earlier.

I think you tire of debate because you refuse to look at the opposite side of the spectrum. The more you look into it, the more you are angered because it makes sense. I have no anti-rest of the world arrogance. I respect most countries and most people around the world. I think the anti-Americanism is the more important issue (I'm not referring to you specifically). You seem to dodge many points I make in your arguments, and yet you tire of me? Anyways, I am off to bed. I look forward to your responses sometime in the future if you are up to it.

Actually, I was getting tired of trying to convince a certain person that Bush is fallible. And typing for a few hours. Your guess was close though. I actually am becoming a Republican because of your compelling arguments like: 'He was new on the job.', and 'Freedom for 25 million iraquis.'

Any dodging of points was likely a result of said tiredness, and I'm sorry to say, unintentional. Now that I've gone and had some dinner and rested my typing fingers, I can hopefully stop conserving my outrage.

By anti-rest of the world, I was somewhat irately commenting on the themes of "it's the rest of the world's fault" and "we know better" that were kinda popping up. Like how the mega-rich US should just stand by and let the UN crumble because it's all those other country's faults.

It's kinda sad when the response to an ailing United Nations is to distance your nation from it.

 

[Sparta]

Do you think Iraq would be safer today, if it was under the control of Saddam?

 

[Neutrino]

Do you think Iraq would be safer today, if it was under the control of Saddam?

Just curious, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Sparta]

Just curious, what does that have to do with anything?

Its a question about Iraq, and i was just curious what you guys think

 

[Neutrino]

Its a question about Iraq, and i was just curious what you guys think

Ok, was just curious in what context you meant it. Do you mean safer as in safer for the Iraqi people, safer for Americans in Iraq, or safer for America as a country?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Do you think Iraq would be safer today, if it was under the control of Saddam?

Today? Depends on how many were killed by fighting with US troops today.

Of course Saddam was a bad guy, but that's not why the US invaded. WMDs were THE chief concern. Removing Saddam was a means to stopping the WMDs, and the liberation of the iraqi people was a happy side effect. Now it's the only effect.

As has been pointed out, the war would have been great if it were the US nobly saving the Iraqi people. The US could have sent in spies and UN inspectors to prove the atrocities Saddam commited, made a great case, and developped an actual plan towards creating a peace after the fighting was done. Instead, they used WMDs and the war on terror as their motives, and they planned their entire attack around a quick victory and a painsell withdrawl. And theywere wrong. Their chief concern was making it look like Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US public.
To me, it looked like a publicity stunt. A "the war on terror is working, watch us fight the axis of evil" stunt to compensate for missing Osama.

As has been pointed out, the only difference between Iraq and plenty of other horrible situations like Sudan is that Iraq has oil. What else made Iraq stand out? If the motive was to save the people, why just Iraq?

And I could very well argue that the US is much less safe now that there are going to be a crapload of new Iraqi terrorists.

 

[blahblahblah]

To you non-Americans. Specifically targeted to the likes of Mechagodzilla, CptStern and others.

What do you think of the democratic canididate John Kerry? Do you think he will do a better job than Bush? This is an earnest question. Do you think that America will benefit from a face change or do you think that the US's foreign policy will magically change if Kerry becomes president? Or you do not know?

I'm curious since it seems most people outside the US hate Bush.

On a related issue, which is more important. Domestic issues (like taxes, health care issues, economic issues, and etc.) or foreign policy (like military intervention, trade and tariffs, diplomatic relations, etc.)?

I repeat - This isn't an attack on anybody. It is an honest question.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

To you non-Americans. Specifically targeted to the likes of Mechagodzilla, CptStern and others.

What do you think of the democratic canididate John Kerry? Do you think he will do a better job than Bush? This is an earnest question. Do you think that America will benefit from a face change or do you think that the US's foreign policy will magically change if Kerry becomes president? Or you do not know?

I'm curious since it seems most people outside the US hate Bush.

On a related issue, which is more important. Domestic issues (like taxes, health care issues, economic issues, and etc.) or foreign policy (like military intervention, trade and tariffs, diplomatic relations, etc.)?

I repeat - This isn't an attack on anybody. It is an honest question.

Frankly, with the threat of terrorism apparently everywhere, I'd say the best solution would be to use diplomacy instead of war. The main reason Terror exists is that other cultures believe that the US and other western countries hate Islam and want to see it abolished.

The shoe-bomber from a while back claimed that he was ready to blow up the plane because "America hates us just because we believe in Allah".

Now if someone sees you as a threat, is the solution to convince them you're not evil, or is it to blow up their kinsmen?

That's why Kerry's so-called "weak" stance on international diplomacy is far, far better. I never want to see a terrorist attack Canada, or anyone else for that matter. Being allies to what the world (rather justifiably) sees as violent, reckless US is, making us us and people everywhere, much less safe.

That's the biggest issue for me. I'm pretty much appalled at the whole war in Iraq situation, and the War on terror. Bush is focussed entirely on 'wars' and how he can defeat anyone who threatens (or, in Iraq's case, doesn't threaten) the US and he doesn't need proof or approval or justification. That's disturbing talk coming from the largest country, one which no-one could ever hope to stop if they go too far. And , like I said, Bush's plan to fight fire with a bigger fire is just adding fuel to the flames and burning everyone.

And, to me, it's the single biggest problem of our time. One which Bush hasn't yet realized, but Kerry has.


Kerry is also a man who doesn't let his religious beliefs interfere with his position. I've written extensively elsewheres about how Bush's attempts to make christianity influence law is an extremely harmful violation of church-state separation. Stem cells, gay marriage, abortion. Kerry's religious beliefs are against those things, but he is staunchly opposed to forcing every american to stay away from them just because one religion says so.
Bush, of course is the opposite. And I think that his attempts to make all of america more christian is selfish, discriminatory and frankly, an apparent grab at the christian vote.

This, honestly is a huge issue for me, because I REALLY hate discrimination.

So, basically, Kerry will apparently keep church and state the hell away from each other (preventing infringement of other's beliefs and discrimination), and fix the War on terror, which is currently just fighting threat with threat and violence with violence.

Both of which make people more free.

Plus, I've read everywhere about all the economic damage Bush has done.
I really don't care too much about US economics, but any sensible argument against bush is one that I support.