Why I'm voting for Bush

[tyjet3]

If there would be "World Peace" you could not achieve it with war.

 

Ok, then you tell me, (if world peace were possible) how would you establish world peace?

[postaldudeleo]

1. I agree with scrimshaw completaly. Saddam would have been toppled anyway at one time even if the president was not Bush. Kerry obviosly would be better as a president but, stop blaming Bush. If congress goes for it then its not all his fault. Its everybodies fault who voted for war.

 

2. World Peace. What is world peace? Its when all countries agree together and be friends in a matter of speaking. That means they resolve all thier conflicts with talk. Well its not gonna happen as long as there are a few countries which support anti-westerner ideals. How is speaches gonna solve that when their burning flags, getting fools to commit suicide, blow this or that up and ect?

 

THier not gonna solve that. The only way to solve that would be to retaliate on our enemies. No more hippies protecting world peace without war. Its not gonna happen. If those people think about what thier protesting and have any kind of interest in history (which 80 percent dont) then they would understand the logic that if we protest ourselves agianst ourselves while they attack us then that means we are losing and are not getting one step toward world peace. You must respond to violence with violence not stand there and ponder.

 

Lets take an example from captian obvious:

 

A seriel killer snuck in to your house witha gun. You know hes there and you have your own gun which has lets say a more powerful hit. He shot at you and missed and you have a chance to save yourself and shoot him. No, but you just stand thier and ask for peace and friendship. Boom he shot you and now your dead. Great job moron, your now dead and its your fault.

 

 

So, what do you learn from that? Now lets continue............

 

You happen to shoot the seriel killer but shoot him in the arm. The police arrive but they send him to a treatment facility (nuthouse) and dont give him any sort of punishment because hes insane. Well geuss what, he escapes from the hospital and shoots you in the back and you die.................

 

Well lets consider the facts. Ever heard this: "no man, no problem". Well how about "kill the head the body falls". Ok, so Stalin may have been an people killing male without a father who killed 20 million of his own people................but that first quote was probably the only thing he got right.

 

Now lets return to our example, if you happen to shoot the seriel killer in the head, he dies. Your alive, and you have no more problems with people trying to kill you. The end.

 

There problem solved. If you want world peace, then you have to take it. Its wont come by itself.

 

Wars will happen anyway, even if the president is different. It doesnt matter. All that matters is what is the problem and how to fix it. Still dont belive me, read Machiavelli. He wrote a very informative book on politcal theory and political dominence that helped secure italy into a solid state. Read it and youll get the main picture..................

 

Tyjet3 has it right in short also.

 

3. Im not gonna argue about palistine.

 

 

Edit by Malchik.

 

Good. Start a new thread if you feel you have anything to say on that issue but don't post unless you have something serious to discuss.

[Darnoc]

Bush's main goal has been to remove terrorist and "bad" people, I haven't heard anything about oil in a long time so don't try and pull that one out. I personally think the world is a safer place now that Saddam is gone. Do you realize what a positive affect the war had on the world? Yes, people died, but Libya surrendered their WMD!! That is awesome! Libya has been a threat for YEARS!! The war my have been started from false information (but I don't think it was fake info created just so they could go to war...) but it helped the world a little bit for future peace. I would like world peace just as much as the next guy, but terrorism will be hard to get rid of and might require war

 

First of all: "One's terrorist is the other's freedom fighter"

 

Never forget this. While we think that terrorists are bad people and criminals, the people in the middle and near east think that the terrorists are heroes.

 

Look at yourself during the war of independence. From the British point of view, the Americans were rebels who had to be crushed. From the American point of view they were fighting for their freedom against an oppressing force. Who is right? No one. Both have right from their point of view. So never forget that when dealing with so called "terrorists".

 

Have you ever thought what the reason for terrorism is? Why it does exist? The question isn't answered as easy as most people (want) to believe. Some say (like Bush and his government), terrorists are just bad criminals, religious extremists who want to destroy anything which is from the West. Others say that terrorism originates from poverty.

 

Both are wrong. Most super-terrorists originate from intellectual families, middle class. And not even from extremiste families. Terrorists are seldom lower class people. Why is that? Because intellectual people have time to think, while lower class people don't! Intellectuals see what the West has done and is still doing to their countries. They are angry, because the West dominates the world. And as I think, they are right. What right do we have to rule the others, even when it is only economically? But then they make a fatal step which leads them to terrorism, just anger follows blind hatred. And this is the point when the terrorist is born.

 

Don't forget that the actions of our governments are partial guilty that terrorists exist at all.

 

Concerning Saddam: Saddam never threatened to attack Europe, so I was never afraid from him. Don't tell me that Saddam was a threat to the western world, for he was not. He may have been a threat to the surrounding countries like Kuwait, but nothing more. The only reason why the US-government wants us to believe that Saddam was a threat is because he threatened their oil reserves and they wanted to become it under their control.

 

 

 

 

 

It takes years of study and not even then you fully grasp the problems of this region. You have to be born there and live there.

 

 

 

Well you don't live there and you weren't born there so what is your point?

 

I do not live there and am not born there. And I do not say that my words are the end of all wisdom. I just say that none of us and certainly not Bush is qualified to give a jugdment of this region. I may say honestly that I know more than most of you about this region, since I study material concerning these conflicts for years. But still I do not dare to make an absolut statement about it. So don't you dare to do it.

[_it_]

1. I agree with scrimshaw completaly. Saddam would have been toppled anyway at one time even if the president was not Bush. Kerry obviosly would be better as a president but, stop blaming Bush. If congress goes for it then its not all his fault. Its everybodies fault who voted for war.

 

ONLY the prseident can decide if the us goes to war concress can only discuss about it bush has the last word thats why he is blamed

[postaldudeleo]

I agree fully with you but does hate of dominece a valid point on killing innocents? Yes, the leaders of terrorists are intellectuals but if there are no followers then the leaders cant succed. But because followers are stupid, uneducated then they jion the leader in a fight they dont understand.

 

Lets take a look at Machiavelli. He says that chaos is a powerful took tool. Because the poor fools of those countries have been fed by the leaders and thier hatred cultivated on a certain people (jews, rich, westerners, non muslim, muslims who ally with westernenrs) . Do most of the leaders in that area even belive in jahad? No. They belive in power. Thier power is thier followers. And they prosper in countries of poor, uneducated peoples. But its also the peoples fault for jioning the terrorists out of thier will even if they are so stupid they where manipulated.

 

Look what hitler did. He caused chaos with his speeches in a time of chaos itself in the depression after WWI in germany. Then he blamed everything on the jews and thus caused hatred and cultimated it at a common enemy to motivate his people. Then during the initial chaos he rode that horse to power because his people saw him as a way to escape the chaos thus he was building on it.

Did hitler really belive that the jews were all evil. No, he in fact didnt at the begining but later during the war his paranoia caused him to belive himself thats when the drastic measures began.

 

Thats why with these men we must apply the no man no problem rule and kill the head. KIll the leaders but the followers began to follow another leader who rose up from the followers. Thus we, if peace is wanted, must crush them fully and kill the leaders to begin towards world peace. But the prospect of world peace will never happen though as for world peace to prosper there must always be someone at the top as a dictatorial ruler to manage the rest to a common goal such as peace. Even if he at one point is good, he will twist his power to selfish reasons because he is human and world peace crumbles. This is also in Machiavelli (it was the pope at the time).

 

Anyhow, the terrorist may be viewed as freedom fighters in thier country as the patriots where in colonial america but the patriots had a just cause because thier money was being stolen from them through unfair taxes and no word in laws as the laws were made. The terrorists have no cause other then the west dominating. the west dominates becaus in the west people belive in working towwards a better future and strive towards a good life and economy. The people in the countries where terrorists come from, they blame thier problems on other people. If they would stop trying to kill the "infedels" and actually try working towards a better future then they will get it. Tjos e countries have opil and resources and they could work with those to raise their economy up to israels's quality and the usa, europe, and other modern countries. But they dont and unless they are quelled then there will be no peace at all and not to mention anything close to world peace as long as they exist.................

 

But I will argue one point, you say you have to live there to understand the problem. Well 2 families of my reletives live there theres even a cousin in the mosad. They probably do understand and as far as they tell me, this is what i come up with.................

[Eiade]

ONLY the prseident can decide if the us goes to war concress can only discuss about it bush has the last word thats why he is blamed

 

My god that is the most blatantly incorrect statement I have seen on any debate topic. Only the congress can declare war. The president has no say in whether or not the country goes to war. Of course, our congress was working with false information when they made the decision.

 

EDIT: postaldudeleo, when you said that someone agrees with you, you weren't talking about me, were you? Cause I don't agree with you.

[postaldudeleo]

Yay someone agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

[Darnoc]

2. World Peace. What is world peace? Its when all countries agree together and be friends in a matter of speaking. That means they resolve all thier conflicts with talk. Well its not gonna happen as long as there are a few countries which support anti-westerner ideals. How is speaches gonna solve that when their burning flags, getting fools to commit suicide, blow this or that up and ect?

 

It is arrogant to think that the Western way is the correct and only one. You say that everyone should agree with our way of life. I say every nation has to decide for itself which system suits for their culture. World peace is not established when every nation adapts the western ideas and systems, but when all nations (or most) agree on stopping to fight eachother.

 

Perhaps you should also ask yourself why they are burning flags and blowing themselves up as living bombs. Perhaps because the western world stands as a symbol of oppression in the rest of the world, especially the USA?

 

And your psychopath example doesn't fit. Terrorists are not psychopaths, they are highly intelligent people who believe that what they do is right and just. From their point of view, from their situation they are acting in the right way. From our point of view they are not. So who is right? Who gives you the right to judge anyone at all?

 

"Do not judge and you won't be judged"

[postaldudeleo]

I talk of the pychopath as the main body of terroists not the leaders.

The leaders are discussed in the second post.

[Darnoc]

The main body of the terrorists are also intellectuals. Most exposed members of Al Quaida were intellectuals from middle class families, had no ties to extremists whatsoever and were not suspected to be terrorists at all.

 

Terrorists are not psychopaths, I say it again. Terrorists are people who believe so strongly in something that they are willing to give their life for it. Terrorists are acctually very brave people and I admire their bravery, not their actions or the result of their actions.

 

And as I said, for us they are terrorists, for other people they are heroes and freedom fighters. Who says who is right?