posted
>> No it is not an assertion backed by facts. It is an opinion backed by nothing but other people's opinons. <<
Opinion: I am afraid of the Bush Doctrine.
Assertion: The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole.
The two are not one and the same.
>> And being that you are NOT an American, you really don't have a whole lot of say in the American democratic process, including the election of the president. <<
So what? So I shouldn't bother talking about it, since I don't get a vote? Since I live directly north of America, if someone decides to war with America, there's a good chance I'll be affected.
>> And being that you are not ME, it really makes no difference to me what you would file under 'need to know to be an informed' anything. <<
Obviously not. I'll just file you under "uninformed."
>> What i DO care about is the security of the nation, and the safety of the men and women defending our country and fighting to preserve the way of life that we Americans have come to love dearly. And those men and women in uniform include some of my closest and dearest friends and relatives. <<
In other words, "I'm more important than anyone else, and American interests are worth pursuing even at the expense of the interests of most of the other people in the world." I don't suppose you can see how that approach is already alienating many other nations, including some of your own "friends and allies?" There's patriotism and then there's nationalism.
Oh, and they aren't fighting to preserve your way of life at all, since it wasn't under threat from Iraq. That much was patently obvious even before the first Gulf War.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Negative. no country is obliged to show support for our action in iraq. Canada is however obligated not to sponser acts of terrorists through financial funding, safe haven, or supply of weapons. If it was me, i would personally ask Canada to go one step futher and work with US security agencies in ensuring that candian borders were secure against terrorist entry onto US soil through cancada or vice versa. but that would be a request for joint benefit, and certainly is no obligation.
I thought Canada was already doing this...? Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
173,000 Americans have died from Air Pollution 121,000 Americans have died in traffic accidents 52,000 Americans have died because they had inadequate access to medical care 3100 Americans have died due to terrorism.
The man is fighting the wrong war.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole"
That is still anopinion. You have no idea what result the Bush doctrine will have on the world as a whole. It could usher in an era of peace and prosperity, it oculd end in the annihalation of all life on earth, it could result in the over abundance of brussel sprouts in scandinavian kindergarten classrooms. you have no idea. it is your OPINION however, that it will be harmful to the world. and that is fine.
Opinion: The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole.
Fact: I have to pee.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a question for those who oppose Bush's policies.
1) What would your ideal president have done, after the events of Sept. 11th? How would he (or she) have handled the evidence pointing to BinLaden being the mastermind of 9/11.
2) If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified? Many are saying that our war is not justified because we dont have any proof. But imagine that there was clear and ample proof that all the claims were true, then were we right to attack?
Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's an assertion. Assertions are be supported by facts, and require factual disproof, not "it's just an opinion" dismissal.
If you were to argue that you don't have to show that the Bush Doctrine will usher in an era of global peace and prosperity because America has the biggest stick and everyone else had damn well better fall in line, that would also be a valid counter-argument, though it would kind of make my point for me.
Edit: cryuseh, I'll get to work on answers to those questions for you.
The supplied information on one of their citizens stopped at an airport.
Thier police files were given to our Immigration and Naturalization people so we could question this man.
What was his crime?
He was born in Syria. (but left their 15 years ago)
His friends brother may have some yet unproven connection to Al Queda.
This friends brother signed as witness on his lease.
He was returning home from vacation, and stopped to change planes in New York City.
The US took this obviously dangerous man, and deported him.
Now to Canada where he has citizenship. They did not turn their info to the Canadian government with this detainee for prosecution in Canada.
After all, Canada would have probably let him go being a citizen who had done nothing wrong.
Instead, they sent him back to Syria.
Back to a country where he spent a year being tortured.
Why was he tortured?
Was it at the request of the US to gather info from him?
Was it because his older brother joined an Anti-government political group? The price to pay for being anti-president in Syria is torture, for you and for your family.
What is known is that he told his American captors that he would be tortured if sent to Syria. He begged and pleaded not to be sent to Syria.
He wanted to be sent home, to Canada.
Syria even refused to take him.
They shipped him off to Syria anyway, despite US Law that will not allow people to be deported to places they will face torture.
When his story leaked out, many Canadian people were upset. They started demanding that thier government explain why they would let this happen to a Canadian citizen.
Their great ally to the south, whom they helped with all this information, responded, "If you want to know why we shipped Mr. Arar to Syria, ask the Canadian Government."
Yes, the US sought hard to distance themselves from this mess. Sure, Canada was with us, but we didn't want to be with them on this.
The case of Mr. Maher Arar shows how arrogant the US's policies have become, and how scarey the US appears to be acting toward the rest of the world.
And a lot of those policies must be laid at the feet of our president. If he is not responsible for them, then he has failed to be a leader.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont have to counter argue anything. The fact is that you are purporting to know the future. If that is the case, Id like next week's lottery numbers. If that is not the case, admit that youre stating an opinion, accept my admission that you are entitled to that opinion, and get on with your life. Itll be ok if your opinion never festers into fact. I promise. it wont hurt.
posted
i would also like to enter into evidence this link to dictionary.com's definition of "assertion" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion "n 1: a declaration that is made as if no supporting evidence were necessary" "2.Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof"
posted
>> 1) What would your ideal president have done, after the events of Sept. 11th? How would he (or she) have handled the evidence pointing to BinLaden being the mastermind of 9/11. <<
I'd say that the operation in Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban denied that they were harboring Osama, but America knew he was there and went to get him. However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on. Much more attention is being paid by the Administration to the reconstruction of Iraq; after all, Afghanistan has no natural resources to speak of. In short, what I'd like to see is more overt support for the new Afghani government from America. More help in dealing with the warlords.
Also, the whole "if you're not with us, you're with them" mentality, and the Bush Doctrine itself, give me the heebie-jeebies. They could have gone to Afghanistan without declaring a global war of undefined scope that has as one of its stated aims keeping America at the top of the world heap.
>> 2) If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified? Many are saying that our war is not justified because we dont have any proof. But imagine that there was clear and ample proof that all the claims were true, then were we right to attack? <<
For me, the issue is the whole war on terror. Yes, if Hussein had been developing WMDs and contravening the ceasfire agreement of Gulf War 1, then some sort of UN action would have been justified. If there had been concrete proof, there would have been concrete UN action, so I think that unilateral American action would still have been unjustified.
However, America had already dealt with the government that harboured Osama. Iraq had no links to any non-Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Hussein's support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad did not, according to the US Administration, extend to weapons – only money for the families of suicide bombers. Iraq, then, was wholly irrelevant to the war on terror. Any action in Iraq would have had to have been declared as being wholly separate from the war on terror for me to be even partially okay with it.
So no. I don't really see any circumstances under which I'd be okay with America unilaterally attacking Iraq.
>> The fact is that you are purporting to know the future. << (odouls)
No, because it has already been harmful. Shall I choose a different word than "assertion?"
quote: If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified?
Absolutely not. Turn the tables. The US has (by its own reports) enormous stocks of WMDs including the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. We have used them repeatedly and continue to threaten to use them. We have provided ruthless dictators (i.e. Saddam) with both actual WMDs and the technology to make them. If we were justified in invading Iraq, then any country in the world is justified to invade us.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm engaging in hyperbole -- but let's face it. From where I'm standing, your challenges to Tres' points consisted of "Yeah, all four of those points ARE pretty bad, and Bush HAS done 'em, but those other guys think homosexuals should get married."
It sounds to me like a lot of Christians really have their priorities messed up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've repeatedly used nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Who have we nuked recently? Who have we dropped canisters of nerve gas on?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'd say that the operation in Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban denied that they were harboring Osama, but America knew he was there and went to get him. However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on. Much more attention is being paid by the Administration to the reconstruction of Iraq"
Twinky, here you and I are in total agreement. I frequent military websites and forums and Im very concerned that the media scope has all but utterly abandoned operations in afghanistan. I have two friends that were in afghanistan and it must be an absolute morale crusher to be part of a 'forgotten war' (the phrase used by a SF soldier in afghanistan). There is still shooting going on there. A lot of it, despite what the lack of mainstream intel would lead one to believe. I doubt it is because of the lack of natural resources though. I think it is more because verylittle being found there now. Our special operations forces did such a phenomenal job at the outset in finding wepons cache's and disrupting terrorist actions while training afghanis to fight the war themselves, that there is not a hwole lot left to find and/or report. Though i wish nearly as much attention was being paid to our men and women in uniform there, if for noting else to confirm to them that what they are doing is not being taken for granted. In Iraq, however, the failure to find weapons and the like IS the news. Hence the huge media push there. Is it right? hell no. is it in keeping with the media mind? i would say yes. but thats just my opinion.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I have two friends that were in afghanistan and it must be an absolute morale crusher to be part of a 'forgotten war' (the phrase used by a SF soldier in afghanistan). There is still shooting going on there. A lot of it, despite what the lack of mainstream intel would lead one to believe. <<
Yes, that's true. I should have been more accurate – less shooting than in Iraq. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan seem equally frustrated – the media only gives them the time of day when some of them die.
>> I doubt it is because of the lack of natural resources though. I think it is more because verylittle being found there now. Our special operations forces did such a phenomenal job at the outset in finding wepons cache's and disrupting terrorist actions while training afghanis to fight the war themselves, that there is not a hwole lot left to find and/or report. Though i wish nearly as much attention was being paid to our men and women in uniform there, if for noting else to confirm to them that what they are doing is not being taken for granted. <<
I do think that Afghanistan's lack of natural resources comes into play. There is no debate about the Administration's motives for going to Afghanistan, but there is debate with respect to Iraq. So I'd say that's what fuels the media focus...
>> In Iraq, however, the failure to find weapons and the like IS the news. Hence the huge media push there. Is it right? hell no. is it in keeping with the media mind? i would say yes. but thats just my opinion. <<
Very true, but I also think that the Administration is focusing more on Iraq, though for very different reasons – I think they're trying to focus on Iraq because they think it has been more successful than Afghanistan.
Edit:
To get back on topic, I really want to see more from Scott R. I want him to expand a bit more on his view, because I disagree with his chosen priorities and I want to understand why he uses these priorities as the basis of his voting choice.
posted
Twinky I agree with all you said, but I think it goes farther.
What President Bush has done since 9/11 is only part of the problem.
What he did before 9/11 is also important.
From the first days of his election campaign he was declaring US strength while declaring US atipathy toward any foriegn affairs. He backed away from the Isreali/Palestien conflict, letting it handle itself, with the resulting violence catching him by surprise.
He backed out of, or distanced himself from many international treaties and organizations. Did he have reason to keep the US out of the world court? That is debatable. Could he have done it without making it look like the US was turning isolationist? I think so.
NOTE: I am not saying that any of his policies caused or led to 9/11.
What they did lead to was the speed in which the sympathy of the world vanished.
What would I have done differently?
1) No Ashcroft to begin with. 2) No Guantanamo Gulag. We have people held in Guantanamo who are not POWs. Yet President Bush claims we are having a "War on Terrorism" and asks the court to waive US Citizens rights (whom are charged with being "Enemy Combatants") because we are in a state of war. How can it be both? 3) No Rumsfeld. He has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the worst time. 4) No Iraq in conjunction with the war on Terrorism. Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia are all more likely candiates to harbor terrorists, and two of those are our friends. 5) No them or us. Just say, "Either you are with us, or we ask you stay out of the way." Even that is a bit too black and white. 6) Fight back with information. This is a war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the mid-east. However it appears our best people are working hardest to win the hearts and votes of US citizens. The war on Terrorism is more important as Internal Politics than Foriegn Affairs. 7) I would listen to the experts. Much of the President's decision on Iraq came from Iraqi refugees who had an agenda. They wanted Iraq freed, so they lied. They were caught faking the evidence that made President Bush misspeak last year. More reliabe was the CIA and other intelligence services. These were ignored.
Iraq: What if all that was said about the WMD was true?
Then the war is justified.
However, the fact that it was not true means that our government failed in its intelligence role. Since that failure seems to have been not on behalf of the CIA or Military intelligence, but on the decision makers who reside over them. It is they who should be fired.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've repeatedly used nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Who have we nuked recently? Who have we dropped canisters of nerve gas on?
You miss my point. I didn't say recently, I said repeatedly. We are the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. We provided Saddam Hussein with nerve gas to use against Iraq so we are at least in part responsible for the canisters he dropped. GW threatened to use nukes against Iraq just months ago.
Whether or not you believe that the US is justified in these actions is irrelevant. If we are justified in invade Iraq simply because we feared that Saddam might have WMDs and use them, then anyone in the world is equally justified in invading the US because we do infact have large stockpiles of WMDs and because in our history we have given plenty of people reason to fear us.
Technically, Saddam Hussein hadn't dropped nerve gas on anyone recently either. That was in fact a point made repeatedly in the lead up to the war. If that Iraqs use of chemical weapons on Iran 20 years ago made along with suspisions that they still had WMDS them a "clear and present" danger -- doesn't the fact that we gave him those weapons and verifiably have stockpiles of them today make us a clear and present danger?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The afghanistan vs iraq success question depends on the yardstick for success.
Did we find WMD? no, not really. Did we liberate the people of iraq from saddam hussein? Yes
Operation Iraqi Freedom was the swiftest, most successful campaign in American history, militarily, and from the standpoint of civilian casualties and treatment of POWs, it was the most humane. (though debates about civilities of war leave me with a bad taste. NO ONE wants to kill others. well, crazy people, but other than that, no one.)
It would seem that the 'failure' in afghanistan was the failure to find osama bin ladin, but then again, we didnt find saddam either.
The missions, as it were would seem to have been different in the minds of the public. Whereas Afghanistan was thought of as 'the hunt for bin ladin' iraq was thought of as 'the hunt for big icky bombs' by that measure, both operations were failures. The actual stated missions however, in both cases, was to liberate the opressed people and trounce out any vestiges of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. by that measure, i believe we were successful enough on boht counts so far, though both are still very very much in progress. In afghanistan however, the forces were primarily Special Operations forces comprised mainly of Army Special Forces to fight as well as train afghan freedom fighters, Navy SEALs, and Air force combat controllers. (im sure there were pararescue jumpers as well, but i cannot verify that right now and so will not list them here) The combat capabilities, tactics, equipment, weapons and organization of these units is for the most part very secretive, and very classified in many instances. As opposed to the war in Iraq in which it was comprised mostly of main force units with reportrs embedded and 24 hour realtime picture. only one reporter was allowed to spend any time with Navy SEALs in Iraq and i dont know if there were any with other special forces units. Even the SEALs who were the doorkickers in the rescue of jessica lynch refused to be interviewed, photographed or even named in the public record. (i am of course excluding the video footage of the assault that really does not lend itself to being able to identify the SEALs themselves.)
quote:If we are justified in invade Iraq simply because we feared that Saddam might have WMDs and use them, then anyone in the world is equally justified in invading the US because we do infact have large stockpiles of WMDs and because in our history we have given plenty of people reason to fear us.
You're leaving out an important fact: Iraq was not allowed to have WMDs. There's no such prohibition against the US. Thus, anyone in the world is not equally justified in invading the US.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
We cannot afford to elect a president who ignores economic reality. I am in particular referring to his social security plan and his assertions about his tax cuts. Attempting to offload the effects of deliberately incorrect assumptions on later Presidents and the American people is vile. And yes, I said deliberately. He's an MBA and can do basic macroecon, presumably.
We cannot afford to elect a president who doesn't have the guts to (or worse, is so two faced he doesn't) fund his own declared priorities. Where is the educational funding? Where is the AmeriCorps funding? Where is the LIHEAP funding?
Perhaps some more later.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember, fugu, none of that is as important as blowing up the terrorists and keeping homosexuals promiscuous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, do you think any kind of society-sanctioned formal promise would stop promiscuous individuals? Why? It doesn't stop heterosexual ones.
Or are you saying that if homosexuals can get married, they'd enmass move to the no-sex-before-marriage idea?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop? No. Reduce? Almost certainly. There are still many people who consider their obligations.
That said, I consider it one of the least important arguments for legalizine homosexual civil unions or marriages.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider it one of the MORE important arguments, since reducing homosexual promiscuity should I think be an important goal of society -- but, yes, I believe that allowing homosexuals to publicly declare a union that is not only sanctioned but supported by society will greatly increase the durability of such unions.
As I know a large number of homosexuals, and am reasonably familiar with the subculture, it is my opinion -- which, mind you, is not particularly popular with homosexuals themselves -- that most aspects of the so-called "gay lifestyle" which seem shocking and/or dangerous to the "straights" are merely responses to closeting and low self-esteem that will go out of vogue as future generations see less need to hide their status.
quote:That said, I consider it one of the least important arguments for legalizine homosexual civil unions or marriages.
It's been identified as the only one that has a chance of working.
Tom, I don't believe it when men blame their need for a mistress on not being understood by their wives either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, think for a moment about what you just said.
A man is unsatisfied with his current partner, so he goes and finds another partner. That's not unreasonable, but you get upset about it because he's a man who made a promise to a woman before God and before society that he'd stick with her, no matter what, and work things out.
Homosexuals have no such promise.
Do you believe that a woman should stick with a boyfriend, even if he makes her unhappy, or should she look for another boyfriend after trying to make things work for, say, two or three months?
What keeps a man with a woman he no longer prefers? Why does he take a mistress instead of dropping her altogether? Why are we MAD at him for taking this mistress? Why does society insist that he try to be satisfied by his wife, instead?
The answer to that is also the reason homosexuals need marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage, in its current state in the country, is no impediment to someone seeking a new wife or a mistress if he's tired of his current one.
It can't work both ways. You can't have a loose and slidey version of marrige, and then claim that it is a binding, solemn contract that tames society.
In your above scenario, it just means that the new paramour for the promiscuous person would be an extra-marital affair.
If someone's a promiscuous person, being married doesn't stop them.
If they're not the promiscuous kind, not being married doesn't make them one.
posted
Dang it, this thread has gotten too long. I was planning to post, but I can't make it anything more than a venomous diatribe now.
One line of argument, and I'll shut up. Debate it how you will: Civil rights mean nothing to the dead.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. See, you believe that people are "the promiscuous kind" or not.
I reject that premise. I think that, sure, some people are less faithful than other people, based on their upbringing -- but I also believe that ANY person can be faithful under the right circumstances, and any person can and would cheat under opposite circumstances.
-------
Mac: how many rights should the living be grateful to give up?
posted
Wow. This turned into a homosexuality thread.
Um, okay.
:walks away:
::Mumbling, as he leaves::
. . . Living with your head in the sand and your butt up in the air to be kicked isn't the same as living without fear . . .
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This thread is so gay." -I forgot who said it but it was said by someone else in another thread that was derailed by homosexuality debate.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another reason not to vote for Bush in the upcomng election might be how is pushing for Taiwan not to break free of China grip for economic reasons. China, who has been recently been economically growing exponentially at the expense of all human rights, doesn't want China to get democracy. Bush of course doesn't want to anger China who is the largest trade giant of ours, but he does give China a slight rebuff about their lack of any human rights. And then he essentially tells Taiwan to get back into line. Apparently Bush would rather push for female circumcision to get a dollar, than to see some rights for the people in Taiwan. How depressing it is to relize we elected him. Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually really surprised that Bush would actually say that he believes in a one china policy.
I'm sure the government of Taiwan is going to like that idea (since they've been working closer to being an independant state).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush seems to be buying into the "What China wants; China gets" idea. China who I believe has numerous missle launchers pointed at Taiwan.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should be studing, not posting, but there are a few things I really want to say.
One, this taking away of rights, if someone might be a terrorist, or even related to one. There is no way we should ever be able to justify supporting it. It's like ASKING for more witch trials, or communist trials, just a new name-suspected terrorrist. On the basis of that alone, I can't see how we can justify voting for Bush.
Two, the CDC. Not a lot of publicity, but the Bush Administration has forced them to switch a LARGE portion of their budget (somewhere between 20 to 40 percent, I can't remember) to research on chemical bioagents. One, if mass attacks were made, it's unlikely that the research would be able to help much, because many of the people would already be dead. Two, people are dying of regular diseases every day. It doesn't make the news, it's nothing new, but the budget cut on research in regular diseases means that cures and medicines will come slower. Which means more people will die. It's stupid.
Three, katarina, I wish I could find the article, but it was an editorial in the newspaper about how homosexuals might save marraige, because they've already defied society by chosing to show what they are, but want it anyway, not because of society, but for it's own sake. I'll try to type out the article monday, if I can get it from my sister, who cut it out and saved it. But he made a good point. These people don't need marraige for any reason, and those who choose it....may just add some meaning back to those vows, since it will be something more important to them than it has become to many people.
posted
Slacker, the official position of the U.S. government for the past several presidents, including Republicans and Democrats, has been to accept that there is one China. But we also recognize that China is not united in government, and we will not allow the mainland government to forcibly impose it's rule on Taiwan without their consent. We consider the final form of government for all of China yet to be determined. By recognizing that Taiwan is part of China, we avoid being in a position where the mainland government can legitimately accuse us of trying to take Taiwan away from China. We just won't let them take it back, which is a wonderful diplomatic distinction.
Give the past several U.S. presidents credit. This is a clever policy.
This is actually a logical outgrowth of the history of Taiwan. Following World War II when the communists rebels led by Mao Tse Tung were taking over the Chinese mainland by force, they were taking over from Chiang Kai Shek. They drove Chiang Kai Shek and his army step by step out of the territories they previously controlled, and eventually drove them to fall back to a last stronghold, on Taiwan. Since the U.S. Seventh Fleet controlled the Taiwan Straight, or at least kept its fleet nearby and threatened to move its fleet in there if the communists tried to launch an invasion, the communists could not pursue Chiang Kai Shek to drive him out of his final stronghold.
Thus, in effect, the civil war to determine control of China has not yet been fought to completion. The issue of who controlls all of China is still up in the air, having never been settled. The Taiwanese government claims to still be the legitimate government of all of China including the mainland, and the mainland government claims to be the legitimate government for all of China including Taiwan. Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung are both dead now, so it is left to their heirs to bring the matter to a resolution. The position of the U.S. government is that this resolution must be arrived at peacefully. And the Seventh Fleet (or whichever fleet is tasked with this) is still standing close by in international waters to make sure that this is so.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that you don't have to be part of the "moral majority" to oppose abortion. For example, myself. I'm religious but I don't let religion affect my political views at all. Maybe if I were in Israel religion would matter but in America absolutely not. Still abortion disgusts me. However, that's not a reason why I'll vote for Bush because he has not made it clear that he'll act on the abortion issue.
Tresopax, to go back to your original post, its just stupid. The idea of your claims that even as a conservative I should vote against Bush because of those reasons is like me claiming that you should vote for him regardless of political affiliation because of his stance on affirmative action and abortion.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Dean is way too left. 2. Clarke is insane and would be a worse leader than a brain dead Bush. 3. Lieberman, the only Democratic canidate I would consider voting for, is too right to win the nomination. 4. I support the war on terror (and I'm not going into the specific arguments and reasons in this thread). 5. I'm against affirmative action. 6. Almost every other issue Democrats disagree only in theory, such as campaign finance reform. 7. A slew of other minor reason but the previously mentioned are the ones in serious consideration.
I would almost consider voting Democratic for these reasons: 1. Gay marriage/civil unions (the difference is non-existent in my opinion) 2. Gun control Those don't outweigh the pro-Bush ones in my opinion though.
I would also like to point out that a successful third party would be the death of American democracy as it would likely that no canidate would receive a majority of the electoral votes therefore sending the vote to the House of Representative where political bargains are likely to prevail.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, affirmative action and abortion are serious issues, but they do not affect the basic nature of government itself. If civil liberties continue to be systematically eroded and the Bush administration is allowed to get away with behaving in a high-handed, repressive manner, trampling on the Constitution in the name of national security, then that must lead to a fundamental change in the very nature of our government.
It is instructive that the old Soviet Union had the most liberal, human rights affirming constitution on the planet. There was just the one proviso in it that in case of national emergency, the constitution could be set aside. And the thugs who ruled the Soviet Union claimed a perpetual state of national emergency, and were allowed to get away with ignoring the constitution completely. Thus because no one held them accountable to their own constitution, they made the Soviet Union one of the most repressive tyrannies in history.
What is to keep that from happening here, if people allow the present administration to follow along the same path of using a national emergency over security issues as an excuse to set aside more and more of the constitutional guarantees of civil rights? Why can't it happen here? People are people. Americans are the same species as Russians. If humans could make a mockery of a liberal, idealistic constitution and create a totalitarian state in Russia, then humans could do exactly the same thing here, if they are permitted--if too many people do not understand how important it is to prevent this from happening.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if I believe that affirmative action and abortion destroy our civil liberties? What if I believe the war on terror is necessary to preserve our civil liberty?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a Bush hater, but I like humor. Most people find that stuff funny. Just like I made fun of Clinton during his years during office. I'm trying to be apolitical in this thread.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm not a Bush hater, but I like humor. Most people find that stuff funny. Just like I made fun of Clinton during his years during office. I'm trying to be apolitical in this thread.
