BUSH OR KERRY?

[GrantT]

That leads to fights so no.

No it leads to intellectual debates instead of childish threads which consist of around three or four words messages which aren't constructive whatsoever. I don't know much about US demostic politics and would like to see some information about why Kerry is the better president for America, as far as I can see at the moment Bush is the better candidate for the US but i'd like to see if someone can prove me otherwise.

[Airbus_A320]

Ya know.... the forum does give you the poll option for a reason... why wasn't this post made a poll

[matt1168]

Personally, I don't like either one.

I was hoping for Sharpton! :P

No...seriously...I liked Gephardt, but oh well.


Kerry is not great, but ABB!!!!

So...


KERRY!

Well that's too bad cause your opinion doesn't count anyway...

I have a good answer...

how about NEITHER!

[Myblock]

Yeah honestly I havn't seen too much on Kerry that makes him that storng of a choice. He's just a clear lesser of two evils.

[CheckSix]

you stupid commies

Ladies and Gents! The fuse has been lit!

I learned a long while back that political discussions are never ending and most of the time people repeat the same thing. It gets old after a while. Hence the reason I tend to stay out of discussions here.

Nevertheless, Bush is my choice. :P

[Jbrewster1012]

I kind of agree that it's the lesser of two evils. I am leaning towards Kerry though, I think mainly because I disagree with the war and think our attention needs to be focused elsewhere. (But I really don't want to debate the war with anybody, so don't try to get me to )

[pilotguy]

Could somebody actually give a detailed reply instead of just typing Kerry or Bush in big bold letters?

[Insert details here]
[Insert Bush bashing here]

Kerry!

[Leftseat86]

GrantT:


I have hitherto come to the conclusion that my first voting experience next year, has been swayed in support of Mr. John Kerry, the democratic candidate. Residing in France for two years left me in strong support of current president BUSH, more so after the events of September 11th 2001, and the war in Afghanistan. Having not been to the U.S. however, I had not been privileged enough to see first hand the economic damage inflicted by the current president's policies. I at first supported the push to war in Iraq, genuinely believing that Mr. Hussein was a threat, and that he was harboring many illegal weapons and had ties to Al-Qaeda. The latter has been proven untrue by the 9/11 investigative commision, and we have yet to find any "smoking gun" in terms of illegal weapons. At this point in time, I fail to see how Hussein posed a direct threat to the security of the United States and its people. I do like the fact that we have gotten rid of a dictator, yet since the Iraqis seem so grateful I am wondering if maybe we should have left them to this madman. Although Mr. Kerry's speeches are deathly boring, his platform vague at best, and his panache, on a scale of 1-10, ranks at -5...I will not vote for a president who has increased that national debt to a size so unimaginable. Because my taxes will be paying this sh*t off a few years from now. I never thought Bush was a great president, and I doubt Kerry will be one. But we need change. I was glad to have a republican in office in 2000, and I will be glad to make a switch in 2004. Al Gore could never have handled 9/11 like Bush did (largely in part to his fantastic cabinet). But Bush cannot act like a conservative yet spend money so foolishly. Thats a democrats job

-Clovis

[GrantT]

Thanks for the reply Clovis.

[PIAA310]

GrantT:


I have hitherto come to the conclusion that my first voting experience next year, has been swayed in support of Mr. John Kerry, the democratic candidate. Residing in France for two years left me in strong support of current president BUSH, more so after the events of September 11th 2001, and the war in Afghanistan. Having not been to the U.S. however, I had not been privileged enough to see first hand the economic damage inflicted by the current president's policies. I at first supported the push to war in Iraq, genuinely believing that Mr. Hussein was a threat, and that he was harboring many illegal weapons and had ties to Al-Qaeda. The latter has been proven untrue by the 9/11 investigative commision, and we have yet to find any "smoking gun" in terms of illegal weapons. At this point in time, I fail to see how Hussein posed a direct threat to the security of the United States and its people. I do like the fact that we have gotten rid of a dictator, yet since the Iraqis seem so grateful I am wondering if maybe we should have left them to this madman. Although Mr. Kerry's speeches are deathly boring, his platform vague at best, and his panache, on a scale of 1-10, ranks at -5...I will not vote for a president who has increased that national debt to a size so unimaginable. Because my taxes will be paying this sh*t off a few years from now. I never thought Bush was a great president, and I doubt Kerry will be one. But we need change. I was glad to have a republican in office in 2000, and I will be glad to make a switch in 2004. Al Gore could never have handled 9/11 like Bush did (largely in part to his fantastic cabinet). But Bush cannot act like a conservative yet spend money so foolishly. Thats a democrats job

-Clovis

I agree with half the stuff you wrote in your post. We still haven't found the WMD's yet. Where are they??? They didn't even exsist. Hussein distroyed all the weapons he had at the order of the UN weapons Inspectors. And second of all, he did have any WMD's that were a danger to the USA.

[FlyCharlestonSC]

He was a bad guy...but couldn't the US have just hired a hitman and killed him and his buds without killing several innocent Americans and Iraqis. Honestly, if he was a real threat, the Israelis would have taken care of it. Have you ever heard of Ilan Ramon?

[GrantT]

They didn't even exsist. Hussein distroyed all the weapons he had at the order of the UN weapons Inspectors. And second of all, he did have any WMD's that were a danger to the USA.

So Saddam was actually a good guy with no WMD?

UN inspectors never destroyed all of Saddam's WMD and were forced to leave the country because the Iraqi regime was not cooperating with their inspections and constantly hiding and evading questions and equipment. They did exactly the same in 2002 with the regime suspiciously saying the UN couldn't enter any of the palaces and the inspectors couldn't interview any of the scientists who were involved in the WMD programs unless a minder was present. Recent reports have suggested the weapons were smuggled out of the country and that Saddam Hussein was looking to acquire new WMD and long range ballistic missiles.

Don't forget it was possible for Saddam to give his WMD and vast knowledge of chemical and biological technology to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, in fact it wouldn't surprise if they were in possession of such technology right now. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is said to be offering money to ex-WMD scientists for information and the knowledge they possess. WMD have actually been found in Iraq and as I already mentioned it is now known that Saddam Hussein was looking to acquire more WMD and other illegal weapons. People try and discount these WMD finds as old Iran-Iraq war weaponry but the fact is these weapons were supposed to have been destroyed under numerous UN resolutions and obviously weren't.

Something seriously went wrong with intelligence from the UK and US (and for a lot of other intelligence agencies), as we have found only a sample of what we were looking for in Iraq. Both the US and UK have investigations going on to find out what happened to the WMD and why the intelligence was so wrong, The Butler Inquiry (the UK investigation) is due in a couple of weeks.

If the US just assassinated Hussein and "his buds," who would be there to pick up the pieces? A new democratic government? Sure.

[Crazy764]

There's no point in argueing about this.

Some people will always be supportive of the US's actions. No matter what new evidence comes out, etc, they'll deny it and call it lies. They will always believe the Iraqi people welcomed American soldiers, even when there's video footage showing the citizens of Iraq experessing their anger towards Americans. There will always be people that truly believe Saddam had nuclear weapons, even if Bush and Blair admit they were wrong.

Some people will always be against the US's actions. They will always believe that Saddam was of no threat to the US, and that the US shouldn't have attacked Iraq. They'll always condemn Bush for his actions. They will always believe that this war was unjustified and unnecessary.

These two kinds of people will never be able to convince eachother to believe differently. They'll deny evidence that proves a point contradicting their own. They'll only pick out the facts that support their view. There's no point in argueing. No one will back down.

[FlyCharlestonSC]

They didn't even exsist. Hussein distroyed all the weapons he had at the order of the UN weapons Inspectors. And second of all, he did have any WMD's that were a danger to the USA.

So Saddam was actually a good guy with no WMD?

Uhhh...you just turned against someone who is fighting in the same direction as you.

He is saying that Saddam destroted all of them before the UN inspectors got there.

He never said Saddam had no WMDs at all. He just said there were none that could threaten America.

(Why the hell am I trying to get people who I don't agree with to understand each other??? )

[Tillerman]

I'm not in the position to vote for an US president. I was never a fan of Bush, especially the way he handles foreign politics worries me. But when I saw the man being interviewed by Carole Coleman on Irish TV network (RTÉ) I am convinced that he is, ummm, not enterily familiar with the fact that there are actually people who dare to disapprove of his way of solving problems.
See for yourself? Look here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime.html

Tillerman.