Bush V Kerry

Originally posted by Ian Davies@Nov 3 2004, 10:38 PM


IMO, Bush's policy on terorism - which, in addition to being mindless, does not sit well with the USA's attitude towards the acts of the Israeli government - have made the world a much more dangerous place to live in.
Click to expand...
I dont think so.
I think the world is not more dangerous than was 4 years ago, what has happened is that NOW people know the world is not save.



About the palestinian affair,Clinton and Barak made a generous offer in Camp David but it was proved that the assessin Arafat prefer the life of a terrorist.



About terrorist
I see it in a different aproach.
They will not change their mind even if you give them what they are asking now, they will continue asking more, and many other would start asking things .
The aproach is hard hand, offer the light arab countries the offer to be in our side,follow the money in banks ,judge them and kill them.
We must learn to live with this and fight against them,if you give up we could end in a very sad world.
 
Originally posted by eric c@Nov 3 2004, 10:00 PM
Some valid points Ian.
Would the world be a safer better place if the Americans changed their approach----say they just stayed at home,protected their own set-up---and let the rest take care of themselves??
Would you vote for that???
Click to expand...
Eric C,

I don't see how USA's attempts to exact revenge for 9/11 makes me safer so, if push came to shove, I guess I'd find it preferable to the USA going to war without UN backing.

But there is a third way - the USA could operate the same standards towards Israel as it does to nations it labels ''Terrorist States;'' it could look objectively at the issues raised by Al-Quaeda et al.

I'm not talking about some sort of woolly-hatted liberal/leftie cave-in - Bin Laden is a mass murderer and needs to be apprehended and spend the rest of his life behind prison bars - merely a pragmatic response to a seemingly perpetual problem.
 
Excellent post Stodge. A superb analysis however the divide between the conservatives and the liberals is almost impossible to bridge as the are so many absolutes- abortion, gays, etc..
Unfortunately it will take a severe downturn in the economy and/or major setbacks arising in Iraq or from Al Queda, none of which I would wish on the US or on us as we always feel the repercussions. Afghanistan could be seen as a legitimate target but Bush/Blair's actions in Iraq have opened Pandora's box by alienating even moderate Muslims throughout the world. The endorsement of Bush by the American voters will be seen by Muslims as approval of his policies further widening any gulf.
I don't believe that an American can now address the current global issues with any credibility from the rest of the world and it a great regret that there appear to be no strong moral leaders elsewhere that are capable of acting as a force for mediation.

To those that support Bush's stance just take a look at what is happening to Israel which has adopted a similiar stance to attacks on it for many years. Are the people safe and does anyone not believe that one day the Palestinians will exact an horrific revenge.

I care about my kids and the world they are growing into and don't want them pitched against the young of other countries in pointless wars because politicans with short term goals do not have the courage to seek a lasting solution to issues that divide religions and races. Every innocent death brings forward several willing fighters so you can't bomb cities and then claim you are doing for the people that live in them. Not unless you want bombs in your own cities!
 
PDJ - I can't see Bush dropping a nuke on anybody. Where on earth did you get such a ridiculous idea?

Bush now has to leave his mark on history. I don't see that mark being the mess that he inherited from Clinton. Clinton's apologists seem to want to blame Bush for 9/11. A sad frame of mind if you ask me. I was an admirer of Clinton but he didn't leave the middle-east in good shape. Bush has been more forward thinking than Europe has over Aids in Africa. He hasn't been a success on the US economy or the environment. But Kerry seemed to be moving towards an insular protectionist policy for the US, which mirrors the insular approach put forward on here for Blair to follow. I am glad that this was rejected by the majority in the US and I think that it will be rejected here as well.

Bush has to answer his critics and when his four years have expired, I am sure that he will have done so.
 
Ian
About Israel is very cheap and fashionable talk against them in any case.
I think the countries supporting palestine like Siria and others are a shame.
If Israel didnt defend theirself as they do they would be all in the sea.



Tout
The History of the human being is full of wars, the war is in the inside of the human being.
If I were arab or comunism I would not be very happy seeing the capitalism democracies are beating their civilisations,but thats the way things are happening.
 
Terry talks about the environment,another good point.
I think all countries should be better in that department but the answer to this is not Kyoto.

The nuclear energy is most the answer.
 
Excellent posts from Stodge , Ian and Brian . I stayed up last night because I was hopefull that the swing states would start to come in around 2am . You guessed it .... around 5am and still desperately hoping for a positive call from Ohio I accepted the inevitable . I agree with Terrry's point . I wasn't so much choosing Kerry as rejecting Bush IN PART . After 7hrs of commentary from bbc/ sky and cnn perhaps the sleep deprivation convinced me that there might still be a chance that Bush would be ousted .
I accept that any analyst who compares the Bush/Kerry agendas will find many similarities . The democrats have moved much farther to the right , much like our Uk parties . Kerry's policy on the middle east was almost identical to Bush's . Kerry was also strong on military funding . I just think Kerry has a little more intelligence and integrity but I do accept that surrounded by hawkish advisers little may have been achieved . Add to that the republican senate .
Kerry might just have endorsed Kyoto which would have been a start to halt climate change , albeit a token gesture given their atrocious consuption of natural unsustainable resources . He absolutely would not lobby for drilling in Alaska . Ok he hedged on gay marriage and abortion but he did favour choice on the latter. More signifiicantly he wanted to develop state funded healthcare paid for by reducing tax breaks on the top 5%
Removing tax breaks for the wealthiest 5% was'nt exactly a hardship to them . He recommended reducing the concession to the level offered under Clinton which still sees the wealthy few making a good profit . In fact Bush's policy of increased tax breaks for the top 5% cost the economy because they simply did not spend more as he had predicted . They just took the money and ran .
There were alot of camera crews in everyday places last night trying to portray the real opinion on the street and I was struck by how many people said "yep , he's a good Christian and that's good enough for me " Equally strong was "homeland security" . If 9/11 had not happened I would doubt that Bush's policys would have been strong enough to re elect . The media war has been won globally and it's saddening to see this polarisation . Kerry in truth is as bad as Bush in this respect . He too assumes that it's us against the Axis of Evil which in truth exists only in fantasy but we'll never know just how he would have handled the mess . Yes 9/11 was an abomination but the far right are using it to instill fear and paranoia and therefore exert control . It's win win for them , reduce the dollar price for a barrel of oil and win the electorate . Lord I'm depressed now . :rolleyes:
 
sunybay,

I wouldn't know if my views are ''fashionable'' - I don't need to watch Newsnight or read leader columns in dumbed down broadsheets in order to form my own opinions. :lol:

Terry,

I don't think PDJ's notion is so ridiculous.

Bush believes he has God on his side and history tells us such men are dangerous.

If Bush thought his ''God Bless America'' nation was in danger and the best way to protect it was to ''nuke'' a terrorist state, he'd hesitate for about as long as the USA did over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
 
Ian are you implying that the rest of us base our views on Newsnight or opinion columns? A rather sad outlook on the rest of us if that is the case. Your views seem a bit unpolished at times so maybe you could do with a bit more external influence.

Kerry was threatening to take America back into its shell. To do so would leave the rest of the world to its own devices. Devices being the operative word. Sooner or later Kerry or his successor would have to act to deal with the consequences of withdrawal, probably from the safety of a superior Star Wars protective system. That President would be the one to press the button and it would have been Kerry who would have started him on his or her way. Bush is at least keeping America in the middle of the ring. He's taking the punches and dishing them out too, but not to the extent that is being implied. Nobody is pretending that he's perfect or that he's got everything right, but I do believe that the Americans made the correct choice from an overall strategic point of view. We need America to help to keep the peace. Bush may not be perfect but he's the best on offer right now.
 
Religious Fundamentalism (The Bush version) V's Religious Fundamentalism (Islamic version)


Odds please
 
Oh right. So these poor American people have suddenly become deeply religious because he said so? Or is he trying to represent their views?
 
Of course taking you comments at face value,would you say that those that voted against bush were all stupid pro terrorists?

Selective memory is dangerous.

The USA had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the 1939-1945 conflict and would have happily seen us go down the plughole but for a rather large event that motivated them.

The USA remain the only country in the world to have used the ATOMIC BOMB against another country.


The USA took over VIETNAM from the FRENCH and got thier butts kicked for trying the impossible. (They have never forgiven the french)

The USA have a policy in the Middle East that can only lead to further conflict.

The USA and the UK are using fear to control the Population.
 
Just a reminder of how the USA rallied to our defence at the start of the 1939-45 conflict.

hree years of mounting international tension - encompassing the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss (union) of Germany and Austria, Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia - culminated in the German invasion of Poland on 1 September. Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. While the USA proclaimed neutrality, it continued to supply Britain with essential supplies, and the critical Battle of the Atlantic between German U-Boats and British naval convoys commenced.

Western Europe was eerily quiet during this 'phoney war'. Preparations for war continued in earnest, but there were few signs of conflict, and civilians who had been evacuated from London in the first months drifted back into the city. Gas masks were distributed, and everybody waited for the proper war to begin.

In eastern Europe and Scandinavia, however, there was nothing phoney about the war. With the Ribbentrop Pact signed between the Soviet Union and Germany in late August, Russia followed Germany into Poland in September. That country was carved up between the two invaders before the end of the year, and Russia continued this aggression by going on to invade Finland.
 
About the fear
take a look of what happened in NY,Madrid or Russia.



About Vietnam
many progressist were very happy with the 2 million people killed when USA left the country allowing the comunist to do their 2 favorite jobs(ruin countries and assesinate people) thanks to the public opinion(many of them influeced by LSD)



About people in Usa hating french ,they have their right to do it, France was in the Second World War the most pathetic country ever and thanks to Usa and GB is free today and what they do is to betray their allies.



About comparing Bush with the Islam fundamentalist simply say that it is very sad to read stupid things like this.
 
Sunybay,
Calling people stupid if they do not happen to agree with you is not,in my opinion,advancing your arguement.

Have you ever heard of "Cause and Effect"

For instance,if you were to go into your local pub and call every one stupid and ignorant,there would be a chance that someone would take offence and smack you.

You could then complain to the local police and they would find out that you had provoked several people and had earned the smack,as a reward for your actions.

This is what is happening in conflict areas today.

What happened in RUSSIA,NEW YORK or MADRID totals 5000 dead at the most.

Estimates of the dead in AFGHANISTAN vary from 6000-55000 and in IRAQ 100000.

Rather puts things in context don't you think.

--------------------------------------

While the USA proclaimed neutrality in the 1939-45 conflict.

France did the same in the case of IRAQ (for the sake of this arguement)
 
Dereck

First of all,I have not called you stupid.


About Cause and Effect
yes I studied it in Fisics


About the terrorism
We are not the cause,we are the excuse and talking about cause and effect is a justification for the terrrorist.


About comparing those numbers,I can not understand how can you mix those numbers.





About France
They are cowards,they are false and they stinks.
They have organised almost every war in Africa to expoilt it, they say they are allies of Spain and Usa but in conflicts between Spain and MArocco they are in favour of the later and in the Iraq conflict they were in favour of Sadam who was responsible of a big part of the financiation of the Chirac party.
 
Sunbay.

You say

"About comparing those numbers,I can not understand how can you mix those numbers."

What would be an acceptable ratio for you?

One SPANIARD = 150 IRAQUIS

One BRITISH = 50 AFGHANISTANIS

One AMERICAN = 100 IRAQIS

One ISRAELI = the population of the rest of the middle east.


If you did not call me stupid i forgive you.That seems to be in line with your view on the current situation.
 
The thing that strikes me about this whole thing is that, in essence, Bush and Kerry were promising to do more or less the same thing about terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan. I heard no suggestions that Kerry was going to take America back into international isolation.

Given that, the election should have been about who was going to provide the best service domestically to the American people. And further given the recent (last 30 years) record of Republicans vs Democrats, economically speaking, an informed American people would have had no hesitation in voting in the Democrats.

So to my mind, it would seem that either

a. The American people are ill informed.
b. The American people allowed the propaganda campaigns of both sides to manipulate a common sense view.
c. The US election, as stated earlier by Wassermusik, became a popularity contest - I reckon I could beat John Kerry in one of those.
d. A combination of the above occurred.
 
Originally posted by terry@Nov 4 2004, 08:04 AM
Ian are you implying that the rest of us base our views on Newsnight or opinion columns? A rather sad outlook on the rest of us if that is the case. Your views seem a bit unpolished at times so maybe you could do with a bit more external influence.

Kerry was threatening to take America back into its shell. To do so would leave the rest of the world to its own devices. Devices being the operative word. Sooner or later Kerry or his successor would have to act to deal with the consequences of withdrawal, probably from the safety of a superior Star Wars protective system. That President would be the one to press the button and it would have been Kerry who would have started him on his or her way. Bush is at least keeping America in the middle of the ring. He's taking the punches and dishing them out too, but not to the extent that is being implied. Nobody is pretending that he's perfect or that he's got everything right, but I do believe that the Americans made the correct choice from an overall strategic point of view. We need America to help to keep the peace. Bush may not be perfect but he's the best on offer right now.
Click to expand...
Terry,

I was not implying that others solely derive their views from Newsnight etc, merely reaffirming that I am an independent free thinker.

You are entitled at you opinion that my views are ''unpolished'' at times, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, that's just your subjective opinion, along with the rest of your posting.

To return to my own subjective opinion - I find your seemingly blind faith in George W Bush equally bewildering.

I also find it staggering that you should be so dismissive of the notion that a nation with previous form for dropping nuclear bombs and more recent form for killing thousands upon thousands of civilians based on the God's-on-my-side religious notion that it will make its ''God Bless America'' country safe from terrorism would never contemplate ''nuking'' a State it regarded as Terrorist sponsoring and beyond redemption.

George W Bush is the worst example of meritocracy anyway in the world and IMO a very, very dangerous man.

A man of severely limited intellect, but for being his father's son, he'd probably be clearing up beer glasses down the nearest bowling alley, along with the rest of the red necks.

Sadly, the Democrats find it hard to win in anything other than the msot extraordinary of circumstances in conservative America.

JFK and Clinton were exceptional candidates, whereas post-Watergate, Carter won by default.
 
Ian
your last post is too much.

Keneddy a good candidate? :D :D

He was not a son of dad......... :D :D


He was also a pacifist..... :D :D


And he didnt bought any vote..... :D :D





Clinton was a good one in a good period for the world and with the congress and senat dominated by the republicans.
 
About Bush
I dont think he is so limited in intellegince as Michael Moore had said to the europeans in his rubish films.

If you think Bush is so limited you should be witness of the one we have in Spain leading the country.
 
Back
Top