US political debate

[DreamOfTheRood]

Pussies are people that repeatedly use the word '*kittie kittie*' to describe cowards or losers. By attaching a reference to either gender's genitalia, you are enforcing a sexist viewpoint that has little place in any serious discussion.

 

I'm quite a fan of the American political system, although these two gentlemen would not be my first pick for either party. I think that Bush has very thoroughly thought out his actions in Iraq, but not so thoroughly when it comes to the domestic agenda. Due to understandable circumstances, he's had his head on al-Qaeda for quite a while. When and if he is elected again, I fully expect him to clean house in Iraq and then settle down and focus on the homeland.

[Peregrine]

Pussies are people that repeatedly use the word '*kittie kittie*' to describe cowards or losers. By attaching a reference to either gender's genitalia, you are enforcing a sexist viewpoint that has little place in any serious discussion.

 

If you seriously consider that a major argument, please just concede now and save me the trouble. Especially since in a nice bit of irony, you've just done the exact same thing you criticize others for.

 

I think that Bush has very thoroughly thought out his actions in Iraq

 

Which is why he turned an absolute military victory into a disaster that's getting our soldiers killed for nothing, cost us the support of our "allies", failed in its stated objective, distracted us from that other war in Afghanistan, and is only slowly getting anything useful done.

 

And as a final insulting bit of failure, despite it being a war for oil, our gas prices have done nothing but increase!

 

but not so thoroughly when it comes to the domestic agenda.

 

Agreed. Bush's domestic agenda is a poorly planned failure.

 

Due to understandable circumstances, he's had his head on al-Qaeda for quite a while.

 

No, he's had his head on IRAQ. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and Afghanistan get completely ignored.

 

 

When and if he is elected again, I fully expect him to clean house in Iraq and then settle down and focus on the homeland.

 

Or leave Iraq a mess and go bomb and invade whatever country god tells him is next on the list....

[tyjet3]

@Isaac: you are right... hate is a really strong word. I souldn't have used it. I actually have said the same things to others about that. I'm my on hypocrit. What i mean to say is dislike... politics just piss me off sometimes and i say stuff i don't mean.

 

Pussies are people that repeatedly use the word '*kittie kittie*' to describe cowards or losers. By attaching a reference to either gender's genitalia, you are enforcing a sexist viewpoint that has little place in any serious discussion.

the 'trying not to piss anyone off' was what the pussish statement was referring to. you can kill as many people as you want but if you're worried about what every single person thinks of you then you are being a *kittie kittie*.

 

so which one is it??? the first definition or the second... And just so you know i used it once :D , not repeatedly... It doesn't change the fact that Kerry changes with the wind.

[surian]

I honestly don't see why people keep saying Kerry is a flip flopper. If you have watched the debates at all you'd know that this just isn't the case. He's been *very* clear about his views and they've not changed at all. Even Bush, in the last debate, stopped trying to pin the term "flip flopper" on Kerry and decided to go even lower and start calling him a "liberal from Mass." in order to paint Kerry as worse than Ted Kennedy.

[tyjet3]

I just don't like him that's all. For example...

He trys to rally together veterns when he talks about his war record, but in his book he called all soldiers rapist, murders and baby killers... yeah, i would like having that guy as president... I'm not saying Bush is any better, he sucks maybe even more. Theses two guys are so bad i dont' even want to vote...

[surian]

can you give me a quote from his book where he says "all soldiers" do those things?

[ImmortalSnafu]

Believe me... ANY soldier killed more people than kerry... i'm sure he "shot at" less people than you think...

 

I have no respect for Kerry military wise. he is a liar and a cheat.

What are you basing these two claims on? The ridiculous Swift Boat Veterens? Or do you have real sources?

 

My biggest befe with kerry is the tax thing... he does seem to understand that in order for his "plan" to work, he has to tax the top % A LOT!! that mean taxing businesses... If a business is being tax and earning no money, the company will close down... therefore leading to less jobs. Kerry's tax plan will crush america's economy.

Have you ever read Kerry's plan? You can read a nice outline of his plan here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf . Read page 8, or the whole document if you have awhile.

 

And speaking of "plans", go on www.georgewbush.com and try and find a plan for the war in Iraq... it's either very well hidden, or non-existant.

 

so which one is it??? the first definition or the second... And just so you know i used it once  , not repeatedly... It doesn't change the fact that Kerry changes with the wind.

What has Kerry "flip-flopped" on?

[surian]

Immortal, to be fair: You'll probably not find anything on a plan for Iraq because (if it exists) it's definately not for public eyes. However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that, if there was a plan, the plan was very poorly thought out and terribly executed. I've always kinda thought it was funny that Bush's father, Bush Sr., detailed in his book why he never went into Bagdad. He said that there was no viable exit strategy and that the US would be in a hostile environment without any real way to make a stable government in any reasonable time. It's EXACTLY what we're seeing right now. There is no "timeframe" for our troops to come home, if we left now then the militant and religious extremists would take over in a heartbeat. If we stay and try to get the Iraqi's to form a democratic government (if you actually take the meaning litterally) then what you'll get is a government ruled by the Shiite majority and they will, in turn, persecute the Kurdish minority just like they did under Sadam. Our only other choice then is to gently suggest (read: force through military might) a government to our liking. We will never be able to leave Iraq unless we have instituted a government that can keep its populace in check, and the only way that can happen is through a powerful government. In Iraq's case that means either a brutal dictatorship or a democratically elected government that is truely representative of the majority (which is probably not a good thing given that they'll more than likely end up acting much like Sadam did).

 

What I forsee for Iraq's future is: We will stay in Iraq for another couple of years at which point we will have placed a figurehead (of our choosing) in power. This could be done through an election (that we will have direct influence over) or by announcing (as we did with their intern government) that their new leader is [insert name here] and leaving it at that. By this time we will have trained enough of a military in Iraq for them to take control. They will become a puppet regime to the US and the government will only keep its control over the public through the threat of violence on the populace. We have no real interest in Iraqi freedom, in fact, if you look at US forign policy in the last 50 - 100 years we have VERY rarely supported democratically elected governments in 3rd world countries. Just so you know, this is not just speculation, it's based on the actions we've taken a dozen times in almost every situation in which we've taken on direct control over a country's development politically. Nigeria, Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Panama, Guam, etc... In most cases, we've actually overthrown democratically elected governments to install a dictator that will do what we want them to do. Always, however, we go in and say "we will bring democracy to these people" yet we end up realizing that this is a dangerous thing to do (as most of the time what the majority in a country want's is not what we want -- I.E. Iraq).

 

Iraq will never be free, and anyone with any semblance of a brain can think that through and realise that this is the case. Kerry was completely correct when he said that the Interm Prime Minister of Iraq is a puppet of the Bush party, it's probably not the best thing to say publically but it's none-the-less true. Bush lies, and lies, and lies, and lies, I'm not even sure that he knows he's even doing it anymore. Kerry tells the truth, I've never seen him say anything that is untrue, he even tells the truth when it probably will hurt his campaign to do so (I voted for it before I voted against it... which is actually true, although badly worded -- he didn't flip flop if you actually know the facts on that one).

 

I'm so sick of people saying that kerry is a "*kittie kittie*" or that he's a "flip-floper". He is none of those things and I think if you spent even the smallest amount of time either thinking or looking into his policies and past you'd see that for yourselves. I'll say it again, the problem with this country is that people don't want to think for themselves. I think that I've proven time and again that I do a lot of thinking about these things and I do a lot of research into the events that happen in our country so that I'm not getting fed a bunch of BS by either the media or the government. I mean, what does it say about our country when Bush's team says something about Kerry and all of a sudden 1/2 the media outlets start repeating it verbatim? It's just sad, no one takes it upon themselves to find the facts anymore and these days it's even more important because you can't trust the media to do its job.

 

Sorry for going a little off topic here, but it's late and I'm tired and annoyed :P

[ImmortalSnafu]

I don't mean detailed military plans for Iraq, I just meant a basic plan for reconstruction.

 

You're being a little too optimistic for Iraq...I'd say civil war would be a more likely outcome.

[surian]

We need to learn, as a country, that it is impossible to instill "democracy" in a country. They have to do it themselves and the only way to do that is by having the POPULATION overthrow the existing government through either force or internal efforts of a non-military nature. This can't be accomplished by sending troops into the country. Look at the one success we've ever had with setting up a democracy in the Mid-East: Israel. All other arguments aside, this is a very functional democratic country, but they had to do the work THEMSELVES. Not every country is ready for democracy and it's always a disaster when we try to force it on people.

 

Kerry was completely right when he said that we should have kept up with the weapon inspections and inforcing embargos and sanctions. Doing this would eventually have mobilized the population of Iraq against its dictator on their own. Eventually Sadam would have been removed by his own people. If not, then they weren't ready to accept the costs of democracy. By all means we can help them out, but sending in troops doesn't do ANY good.

 

So, I agree with you Snafu, eventually there will be a civil war in Iraq. Whether it is referred to as a "War" or as "terrorist acts" is just a matter of opinion but there will never be peace in Iraq until the people of Iraq are allowed to work this out on their own. These people are not children who need the US to kick them around, they have to do this on their own and find a government that works for them.