Why I'm voting for Bush

[FlightlessBird]

Their is a large difference between Hitler and Saddam. Well, many in fact but two of them are circumstance, and charisma. The reason why all of Germany followed Hitler was because World war one had just ended, and the treaty or Versailles(grrr...whatever) had just put Germany in a huge repression. The people of Germany were miserable, and they had no one they could follow. Hitler manipulated this circumstance. He told the people of Germany that they were better than the rest of the world. And hey, if you were part of a mass amount of people with a 5th grade education, (that might be a little harsh but true) I think you'd beilve a guy who blamed all your problems on others. Hitler played the blame game with Germany's masses. He told them that the jews, christians, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally disabled people were to blame for all their poverty. He had given them a common enemy in which to unite agaisnt. Just what they needed. As stated above, Hitler was very talented speaker. The masses immideatly absorbed what he said and took it to heart. This strengthend thier belief in him. That is why Hitler was able to rally Such an in-debt country to be a superpower once more. (I might have left some stuff out but this is just to prove my point)

 

Saddam, however, did not seek to unite his people together. He sought to rule over them with an iron fist, keeping them down. He used his millitary power to stay in his seat and to stop anyone who oppose him. He never had the power or technology to lead an invasion like Hitler did. Although Saddam, as stated before me, was not a foolish. He knew he couldnt invade with all of the world's guns pointed at him. Hitlers circumstance was different. No one expected Germany to rise up again. They thought that the treaty of Versallies ( :angry: ) would keep them down. Well... i kind of lost my train of thought right there.... :huh: uh.... Well my over-all point is that: I doubt Saddam would have ever ended up like Adolf Hitler... :blush:

[surian]

Well... you tell me who is acting more like WWII Germany right now. Iraq or the US? This isn't to say that we are nazis but I do think that the similarities to "german agression" and the US "war on terror" are stunning. That's why I said that it can't go on forever, someone will stand up eventually.

[Zmid]

I think a good thing to point out is that going into iraq was not a completely bad idea, but it was not a completely good idea as well.

Personally, I think the US and UK did the right thing for the wrong reasons, and that makes us all the way wrong. Plus, Saddam should've been taken out long ago, but he wasn't simply because he was useful to us back then.

 

I think that the death toll has reached too high for what we were trying to accomplish, but something had to be done with Saddam sooner or later. And since what happened on 9/11, Bush decided to take action and make it sooner. And yes theres the arguement about what the U.S. went into iraq for: gas, WMD, Saddam himself.

 

It wasn't really Saddam. If you search around on the net and find the official UK and US government documents detailing the objectives of the Iraq War (you can see a quote from the UK one in my sig), they were to disarm Iraq's WMD and the US one mentions that they have to prove they were liberating Iraq and not conquering it. Taking out Saddam was simply a step they had to take to achieve their objectives, not one of the objectives itself.

 

Personally I think it was all of those, and yes, Bush wanted the WMD the most. I mean, you just have to ask yourself, how powerful would Saddam have become had we not gone into Iraq. If Saddam had the power to follow in Hitler's footsteps except choose a different target to mass murder (Americans), i'm quite sure he would do that, and that just scares me.

 

I severely doubt Saddam would've been allowed to become as powerful as you think, but just for argument's sake, let's say this did happen. Even then, I don't think he would attack the US, or anyone else, because he would know the consequences - Iraq would be attacked by quite a substantial portion of the entire world.

[Alexander the Great]

I have to say taht i am not party biased. My party is the me party. All that really matters is that im not voting for Kerry. The real reason is that he and John Edwards were both personal Injury lawyars. And the money that i have all comes from my father being a doctor. If there are pi lawyars in control then my life is in trouble.

 

Now that that is over with. You all have to be kidding when you are trying to compare either the US or Iraq to world war II germany. The only similarities are the oppressions of people. And on the subject of people following hitler. He was the only one who put forth ideas. He was able to speak to a crowd. he convinced his fellows that his ideas were good. And you do know that most germans didnt even know about the extermination of jews. so germans oppressing jews is not like the sunii muslim oppressing the shiites.

[surian]

My mom is a doctor as well. She's got nothing against Edwards or Kerry though. She's seen no evidence of them practicing shady law against doctors. There is a need for personal injury lawyers in this country. She aknowledges that. By the way, I think she's going to vote for Bush anyway, but the reason has nothing to do with Kerry or Edwards being personal injury lawyers.

[Alexander the Great]

I know. That isnt my main reasoning either, i just like the sound of it.

[Dew]

You cant begin to compare hitler and saddam. Saddam was not a major threat in the early 90's, and since the gulf war Iraq's military strength has been reduced to 1/3 the level it was at that time.

 

People didnt try to say Germany wasn't a threat before the second war, they did try to say hitler wasn't, but speaking only of his personality. Thoughts like these came from fear of another great war, and politics was put before guns to try to make hitler happy.

 

I've been thinking about what has been said regarding the U.S's diminishing military power, and talk about weapons inspections in Iraq.

 

Why is it nobody steps up and says anything about the U.S's nuclear and biological weapons? The entire world's stockpile of WMD doesnt add up to how much the U.S has control of, yet Bush recently approved a plan to spend billions of dollars over the next 4 years increasing the U.S's nuclear arsenal, and making nuclear bombs that can kill even more people? What is the point of that?

 

The U.S is also under pressure from countries like China, and more importantly Japan, to prevent North Korea from creating a nuclear arsenal, and conferences involving these countries (nuke friendly nations) are being held to stop North Korea from doing so. Is this not ignorant?

 

Japan, the only country to have ever been targeted with nuclear weapons should understand that these are weapons that no human being should have access to. Up until now, Japan understood that and took great responsibility with it's military, something I really respected. After the war they vowed to never create nuclear weapons, and to only have a military for defensive purposes. Isn't that an amazing concept? A military for defensive purposes. Think about how better things would be if we only used military for defensive purposes, to protect our own people and our own borders, not to invade and conquer.

 

But Japan is changing it's mind. There are numerous government advocates to strengthen the Japanese army, to make an offensive army, and to build nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Infact, it's said that about 400 nuclear weapons could be made within the next year or so, given Japan's resources.

 

It's disgusting.

[Coolhandgoose]

I think I'll throw my two cents into the discussion.

 

Being from Canada, I am concerned about certain things that the States does. Due to our neighbouring borders, and the fact that Canadians are pretty much pacifists, we tend to go along with most of what the U.S. does. When we don't, the U.S. gets quite pissed off at us. Not only us but other countries as well who don't follow the machine (ie. freedom fries, freedom toast). This puts a huge strain on trading relations like the current softwood lumber and live cattle situation. Just because the U.S. is big and mighty doesn't mean everyone has to follow them. Jean Cretein did our country it's only favour during his term by not going to war with Iraq. I think that the war in Afghanistan is justified; however, not in Iraq. I still haven't quite figured out the connection.

 

It is of my opinion that the U.S. should adopt a stronger foreign policy towards peacekeeping. And I know you're thinking that what they are doing right now is peacekeeping, but at the time when they declared war on Iraq, they did not have approval from the U.N. council. The most powerful country in the world shouldn't start wars and acting like cry babies if they can't get their way right away. The U.S. really needs to set the example for other countries. You can't hand people freedom, they won't know what to do with it. Freedom takes a long time to develop and needs the backing of most of the citizens in the country. Otherwise crime and pocket groups of fanatics will lead to more terror.

 

For the original topic of this discussion, why you're voting for Bush and not Kerry, I will direct you to the following website. There are more than two people running you know. If you are only voting for Bush because you don't like Kerry, I think you're missing the point of voting and expressing to the country what your views are. Politics1 - 2004 U.S. Presidential Election (P2004)

 

This is another site some of you may be interested in. It details what the U.S. could have paid for if they didn't go to war in Iraq. Please take a look.Cost of War

 

Cheers

[surian]

unfortunately our country's 2 party system doesn't allow for 3rd party candidates to become viable contendors for president. You pretty much have to side with democrat or republican to have a chance (sorry guys, but it's true). I'm voting for Kerry because I don't want bush in the whitehouse for another 4 years. True, it's not the best reason but I think he's much more dangerous in the white house then kerry will prove to be.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

unfortunately our country's 2 party system doesn't allow for 3rd party candidates to become viable contendors for president.  You pretty much have to side with democrat or republican to have a chance (sorry guys, but it's true).  I'm voting for Kerry because I don't want bush in the whitehouse for another 4 years.  True, it's not the best reason but I think he's much more dangerous in the white house then kerry will prove to be.

Here, here. Lets hope americans can start to get TRUE choices. It makes me wish I was 18.