America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I constantly read the Misc. discussion board and generally enjoy the political discussions though I stopped posting because of the constant attacks, stereotyping and generalizations so i would like to see if we can start a very civil discussion based on the below:

I am trying to decide who to vote for in Nov. In most regards, I am a moderate democrat though i vote based on who i feel best fits "my" platform whether he be Dem or Rep. Following are my thoughts on each candidate and would like to see some viewpoints on this without the derision and malice:

Bush- My biggest issue is this. I feel that he has possibly created a modern version of vietnam in Iraq. He gave the reason for invading as finding WMD which was based on very questionable intelligence at best. For some reason he just seemed fixated on Iraq. When it became apparent very quickly that there were none to be found, it then became a "liberation" mission. Then it became part of the war on terrorism. All along my belief has been that he has wasted way too much time, money, resources and, most of all, lives on this invasion that was not necessary. We should have been putting all of this energy towards eradicating Al Quaida. And say what you will, but there is no credible link between Iraq and Al Quaida. Because of this, Al Quaida is still a very viable threat and the "War on Terrorism" has not been battled as it should. I also belive that his arrogance towards the rest of the world in the War on Terrorism has alienated most of the world community when the opportunity was there to gain their support and help in the battle and that includes Muslim/Arab countries. Now we truly are a hated and reviled country to a lot of the world.

Kerry- I believe he would handle the economy better, would be a more eco-friendly president and obviously has more of the "moderate Dem" views that i support. The problem is that I still belive in a postion of strength from a military point of view. I want to have a strong military. I just don't belive we should invade countries for the sake of invading and that that strength should truly be used against the true enemies (terrorism) and part of this means working with our world partners, not alinating them. Kerry goes too far the other way in this regard. He is TOO liberal when it copmes to the military for my tastes. I believe he would cut too much spending, would not be forceful enough when necessary.

I hope I made sense. I would be interested in some civil "bipartisan" responses. I am looking for thoughtful responses that will help open my mind a little more. None of the DEM vs REP diatribes that seem to be the norm on these boards these days. Just because I tend to lean to the left doesn't make me evil or wrong just as someone that leans to the right doesn't make them evil or wrong.

B

all good points Shawn . What we also seem to forget is as long as Saadam was in power we would have to spend Billions to watcth him because the minute we quit looking b he would be trying to make WMD's it would not end until he was gone. He did have chemical weapons and they aint fun.He was shooting at our planes making us look silly because we did nothing or not enough about it this in violation of a UN mandate.I also believe he would cuddle up to anyone to try to get revenge on us for pushing him out of Kuwait, including Al-Queda. Simply put we put our money were our mouth was.

Bush has got to go: he totally botched Iraq, and he's raping the environment, but Kerry would be even worse. He'd castrate the military and raise taxes when we're already being taxed to death. There's virtually no difference between the Dem's and Rep's anymore, which is why I usually vote Libertarian.

I preety much agree with Shawn.

Kerry IS a veteran, but he lied about war crimes he never personally witnessed, took the side of our enemy, to the detriment of our prisoners held by them. He forced the POW/MIA issue to a close to facilitate the closing of a deal by his cousin to upgrade port facilities in Viet Nam for $9 BILLION. He voted against EVERY major weapons system upgrade or aquisition in the past twenty years (Aegis, Tomahawk, F/A-18, DDG-51, DDG-21 development) He voted FOR the war in Iraq, but AGAINST funding it????? (I know he says he only meant to authorize the THREAT, but is ANYONE that stupid?) and he is continually reversing his own opinions. BTW he was all for invading Iraq from 1996-2002! He was also convinced that Saddam was building up a stockpile of WMD. As has been stated before, He HAD them, that's a historical fact.

Kerry likes to point out that Bush was AWOL (a non-issue in Nationl Guard Units) The Dems in general like to point out that Cheney's old company got "no-bid" contracts in Iraq, but he sold out no Americans and has no overt benefit from these transaction, although he MAY have some remaining investments, I don't know. As to Al Queda not having anything to do with Iraq, and Iraq not having anything to do with the war on terrorism, I'd like to point out that the most wanted man in Iraq right now, who seems to be coordinating many of the attacks in recent weeks. So maybe there IS something to the War of Liberation, and the war on Terrorism aspect. I rather think there was something to the WMD aspect, but I personally think we were too late, and they will turn up someplace unpleasant, in the hands of someone unprincipled. I do not really see that much differance between the two except on the issue of national security, and Bush is a runaway winner there. I disagree with the Patriot Act, and think it should be repealed, but I think we are headed in the right direction with confronting our enemies and treating them as threats instead of misguided would-be allies.

Overall, I am NOT an automaton, blindly following my leader, but I am not blindly trying to replace someone with anyone available either. I think the times are too dangerous to make decisions based on so flippant and cavilier an attitude.

just my .02 worth.

Eb, one word... NADER!! WOO WHO!!

P.S., Bomb Syria, Iran, and invade North Korea. Might makes right...

BTW, I think Kerry is sleezy as hell and poses a threat to our nations defenses.......I just don't like what the right has to offer right now (Bush).

There are several theories about the Iraqi weapons:

[1] there were some test weapons but, but just enough to use on the Kurds. Then, Saddam's scientists told him they were working on more and better weapons and needed more money for equipment. The scientists used some of the money for bribes and pocketed the rest or sent it overseas to their families. Saddam believed he had (or would soon have) the weapons he dreamed about. Our spies picked up the information and passed it along as credible, and the rest is history.

[2] the weapons are in another country. Since the Iraq invation was not an envelopment, and not a secret either, the weapons could have been smuggled to another country, or more than one country in the region. Syria is a likely candidate, and so is Iran. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[3] Saddam used the last of it on the Kurds and didn't have any more.

My personal favorite is Theory 1. Everybody believed the weapons were there - including Saddam himself, lending credibility to the intelligence.

Guys, your stance is based on conspiracy theory-type elements not facts. With that approach, ANYTHING is possible. We must look at with what is in front of and not what is heresay.

The issue brought up earlier is about as solid as it gets: Al Quada has not been brought to justice and last time I looked Osama is still holed up in the mountains of Afganistan/Pakistan NOT IRAQ!

When relaxing around the mansion, John Kerry wears flip-flops.

Just kidding, relax!

There are several things I don't agree with Bush about, mainly concerning tariff's, immigration and things like that. We're spending too much money that we don't have. I don't think he takes the blame for the economy for several reasons. The economy has always been cyclic. The recession was starting when he took power and no President could tank the economy that fast after taking power. The US economy is to massive to move that quickly. I doubt if any economy has ever taken as massive a hit as ours did on 9/11 and the recovery looks good. On WMD's I don't understand the anger on this issue. If Bush knew they didn't have them then he successfully deceived the whole world because everyone, France, Germany, Russia etc all believed he had them. Iraq used them so the question is not did they have them but rather what happened to them and when. I think we haven't anticipated everything that happened in Iraq but you never do. The other guy has some say on what occurs. The bottom line is we have inflicted very heavy causalities while not taking that many. The terrorists are on the run world wide and been disrupted. They will probably hit us again because this is a war but we have hurt them badly. I believe the war on terror is the top priority because I believe it is s serious threat to our way of life. Sorry to be so wordey.