NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really think that this thread has much of a purpose, but I feel it is necessary to balance the board.

So conservatives, (actually, I only really care about Paxania answering) explain why Kerry will be bad for America.

I can guess what the conservatives will say.

9/11, terrorists, 9/11, Iraq, taxes, 9/11, self-inflicted wounds, 9/11, terrorists, 9/11.

all a bunch of white(supremacist)noise

I want to see one of these "Why X" 'without using X, Y, and Z' to eventually breakdown to

"Why X, without using 'and,' 'because,' and prepositions."

thanks for letting me use your thread to make a lame joke so I didn't have to make a lame joke thread of my own. I'll go now....

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany, and the United Nations Security Council. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

John Kerry specifically says we should have sent troops to Iraq with proper equipment, such as body armor (as opposed to George Bush sending them with spitballs). Hmm...

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. Feel free to ask questions.

Well Kerry would renew a ban that is going to expire in 4 days 5 hours and 20 minutes. Obviously nobody is crying about it expiring because it did nothing for banning what they wanted to ban.

As stated by Tom Diaz:
"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass." Tom Diaz, Senior Policy Analyst, for the gun ban group Violence Policy Center (VPC)

So why Kerry is dumb enough to do what Al Gore did and lose this election by alienating gun owners (semi auto guns have been an American civilian heritage for over 100 years with millions of legal owners in the US now) I dont know. Honestly if Kerry didn't have this stance alone I would bite my tounge and vote for him over Bush. I could do without the tax cut that I didnt get anyways. But I would never comprimise anything that has been allowed to American's for over 100 years without any studies proving a safe legal gun owner endangers anything or anybody.

I have other gripes with Kerry but they are not Constitutional issues so I could careless about them because Bush has some equal retarded thinking on non Constiutional issues.

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.

Indeed. Can you name an "evil" invading force that did not have a doctorine of pre-emption? Are Bush's justifications for going to war with other countries going to be as "iron clad" as his justification for going to war with Iraq? Pre-emption is a dangerous precident, as any serious historian can tell you.

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

Only Britain has contributed significant money and manpower. The rest is primarily just a paper coalition

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

Bush should have remembered Eisenhower's words when he thought the invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk.

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

Meanwhile, Bush pushes forward record spending and record deficits, which means Bush can wash his hands of raising taxes, while forcing his successors to do so. It's like charging a credit card to it's limit, and then giving the card (and debt) to someone else.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

Government has more power to negotiate prices than individuals.

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

John Kerry has never been for the war. He has consistently said he was for the Authorization. There are those to say that Kerry was naive to think the authorization would not be used. I counter with saying that perhaps it is naive to believe Bush...

John Kerry specifically says we should have sent troops to Iraq with proper equipment, such as body armor (as opposed to George Bush sending them with spitballs). Hmm...

The bill that Kerry voted against (which passed anyway) failed to specify sufficiently where the $87 billion would be used and how it would be paid for. The Bush administration wrote said bill. Whose fault is it that the soldiers did not get their body armor? Hmmmm?

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, wanted to cut more than Kerry did, which makes sense, after the end of the Cold War.

Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. Feel free to ask questions.

Is our Chidren learning?

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

John Kerry specifically says we should have sent troops to Iraq with proper equipment, such as body armor (as opposed to George Bush sending them with spitballs). Hmm...

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. Feel free to ask questions.
This is a good thing. Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible. Many more civilians die in them than die in terrorist attacks. 13,000 Iraqi civs dies in this war. 3,000 died on 9/11. The only way it works is if you think that American lives are worth more than Iraqis. I don't.
In addition, I don't think that dumping the doctrine of preemptive strikes is equivalent to leaving America defenceless. There are other, more legitimate ways to guard America. Making the intelligence agencies work is a good start.

I think having the support and intelligence of the international community in an intelligence-based war is pretty important.

Again, this is a reason to like Kerry. Using excessively heavy handed force only kills civilians, makes other civs angry and turns them into terrorists. Having a plan to win the peace after waging the war is common sense, and in the tradition of America. See Germany and Japan. Going to war without planning costs soldier's lives as we have seen.

Tax and spend is better than bankrupt and spend.

Yeah, he needs to raise taxes to make up for the Bush deficit.

"the government has no money" - and whose fault is that? Yeah, Bush. At least the rollback of the tax cuts for the rich will help to pay for healthcare.

I thought Kerry was always pro-War.
Yeah, he changes his mind and doesn't see the world in black and white. Again, not a bad thing.

Body armour is better than spitballs. Kerry voted for the body armour. It would be stupid not to send the troops in without it, and Kerry isn't stupid.

I don't know much about this one, but he sounds like he has a plan to fund his healthcare proposals. That is, to move some money from military to healthcare.

Indeed. Can you name an "evil" invading force that did not have a doctorine of pre-emption? Are Bush's justifications for going to war with other countries going to be as "iron clad" as his justification for going to war with Iraq? Pre-emption is a dangerous precident, as any serious historian can tell you.

Watch out, Canada; this devout Christian is out for total world domination!

Only Britain has contributed significant money and manpower. The rest is primarily just a paper coalition

We have the support of the international community; France and Germany were arming Iraq, from what I hear.

Bush should have remembered Eisenhower's words when he thought the invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Who's the one that's been talking about plans to "win the peace?"

Meanwhile, Bush pushes forward record spending and record deficits, which means Bush can wash his hands of raising taxes, while forcing his successors to do so. It's like charging a credit card to it's limit, and then giving the card (and debt) to someone else.

Here's the beautiful thing about the debt: we never have to pay it back.

John Kerry has never been for the war. He has consistently said he was for the Authorization. There are those to say that Kerry was naive to think the authorization would not be used. I counter with saying that perhaps it is naive to believe Bush...

I highly recommend KerryOnIraq.com.

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.

In my opinion, Kerry isn't left enough. Currently, The Democrats are just Republican-Lite.

This is a good thing. Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible. Many more civilians die in them than die in terrorist attacks. 13,000 Iraqi civs dies in this war. 3,000 died on 9/11. The only way it works is if you think that American lives are worth more than Iraqis. I don't.
In addition, I don't think that dumping the doctrine of preemptive strikes is equivalent to leaving America defenceless. There are other, more legitimate ways to guard America. Making the intelligence agencies work is a good start.

I think having the support and intelligence of the international community in an intelligence-based war is pretty important.

And we had it! We had the inteligence of the CIA, MI6, Russia, and Jordan! We had the Coalition of the Willing! We had the support of the international community no matter what Kerry says!

By the way, I don't know if those figures are accurate, but that's roughly 1000 people a month compared to 3000 people in an hour.

Again, this is a reason to like Kerry. Using excessively heavy handed force only kills civilians, makes other civs angry and turns them into terrorists. Having a plan to win the peace after waging the war is common sense, and in the tradition of America. See Germany and Japan. Going to war without planning costs soldier's lives as we have seen.

Are you going from Fahrenheit 9/11 too? That building he showed being bombed after he shhowed children playing in post-Saddam Iraq was the Ministry of Information. America's targeting systems are the most advanced in the world.

Tax and spend is better than bankrupt and spend.

Yeah, he needs to raise taxes to make up for the Bush deficit.

Are you saying America is bankrupt and economic growth cannot happen? :o I highly recommend GrowthDebt.com.

"the government has no money" - and whose fault is that? Yeah, Bush. At least the rollback of the tax cuts for the rich will help to pay for healthcare.

You misunderstood: the only money the government has is what it takes in taxes.

I thought Kerry was always pro-War.
Yeah, he changes his mind and doesn't see the world in black and white. Again, not a bad thing.

Again, KerryOnIraq.com.

Body armour is better than spitballs. Kerry voted for the body armour.

Before he voted against it...

It would be stupid not to send the troops in without it, and Kerry isn't stupid.

I'm seeing the evidence.

I don't know much about this one, but he sounds like he has a plan to fund his healthcare proposals. That is, to move some money from military to healthcare.

Smart move!

In my opinion, Kerry isn't left enough. Currently, The Democrats are just Republican-Lite.

Well Bush is to left for me.

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.


That's basically it. Kerry is beyond leftwing. His economic policy is the absence of economics and is borderline communism. Bush, isnt a true conservative. He keeps funding terrible programs like Prescrpition Drugs and Department of Education (both things the liberals want to fund) and increases the federal budget.

Raising taxes is a plan Kerry uses, Bush lowers them because of Supply-Side ecomonics which thanks to JFK and Reagan, have proven to work. However, the real thing is to now cut the fat. Get rid of crap like the Inheritance Tax. Get rid of the Marriage Penatly. Stop with these trillions of regulations. Privitize more stuff, and get rid of the alphabet committes. Then you will have a balance budget. But since Bush wont do it, and Kerry wants more of it, well you have more problems.

My vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry. If the Democrat candidate was more moderate, i would vote Libertarian, but since Kerry is a communist on economics, Bush gets my vote.

I thought Kerry was always pro-War.
Yeah, he changes his mind and doesn't see the world in black and white. Again, not a bad thing.
One of the reasons I am supporting Kerry. Of course, I would like to see Nader elected, but I don't see that happening (at least, not this year ;))

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.
What we really need is another Clinton! Think about it. When Clinton was in office, the tech sector was going through the roof and people were making money hand over fist. It's hard to believe now that in 1999, Newsweek actually ran a cover with a cartoon woman crying and saying, "Why aren't I rich yet?" Being rich was that common. People who worked in HOME FRIGGIN' DEPOT were millionaires off their 401(k) plans! Then Bush came in and let all the good jobs be outsourced to India and the economy go down the toilet just so all his golf buddies could save money.
Besides, under Clinton, the White House was a lot more fun....

This is a good thing. Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible. Many more civilians die in them than die in terrorist attacks. 13,000 Iraqi civs dies in this war. 3,000 died on 9/11. The only way it works is if you think that American lives are worth more than Iraqis. I don't.
In addition, I don't think that dumping the doctrine of preemptive strikes is equivalent to leaving America defenceless. There are other, more legitimate ways to guard America. Making the intelligence agencies work is a good start.


Well I think American lives are much more important than any one else. So if we will them ALL in our defence I won't blink an eye in sadness because to surive in such a time as this you must take drastic action to insure your own survival.

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.

Ya I know..

Watch out, Canada; this devout Christian is out for total world domination!

No, just the other countries of the Middle East



We have the support of the international community; France and Germany were arming Iraq, from what I hear.

Oh? Is that why we're paying 90% of the costs (several billion of which are unaccounted for) and incurring 90% of the casualties? Yeah, Bush has done a wonderful job drumming up support for this war. I guess that's why 71% of Europe sees America as the biggest threat to World Peace.



Who's the one that's been talking about plans to "win the peace?"

I've seen a lot of talking by the Bush Administration, but there was certainly no decent plan ahead of time. They can't even defend the precious oil from insurgents! The oil that was supposed to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq that we're being overcharged by Halliburton for. America's approval rating in the Middle East is in single digits!



Here's the beautiful thing about the debt: we never have to pay it back.

Maybe not, but we are paying interest on it every year. Interest that would be best used actually funding programs



I highly recommend KerryOnIraq.com.

Likewise I recommend: TheSmirkingChimp.com
and: www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bush

What we really need is another Clinton! Think about it. When Clinton was in office, the tech sector was going through the roof and people were making money hand over fist. It's hard to believe now that in 1999, Newsweek actually ran a cover with a cartoon woman crying and saying, "Why aren't I rich yet?" Being rich was that common. People who worked in HOME FRIGGIN' DEPOT were millionaires off their 401(k) plans! Then Bush came in and let all the good jobs be outsourced to India and the economy go down the toilet just so all his golf buddies could save money.
Besides, under Clinton, the White House was a lot more fun....
Hm, well, I support Hillary Rodham-Clinton for '12.

My vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry. If the Democrat candidate was more moderate, i would vote Libertarian, but since Kerry is a communist on economics, Bush gets my vote.

Exactly! I bet people would be amazed at how many Conservatives know Bush is not even close to being Conservative. But still when you have a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle the commie. I have to go with the dummy over the commie.

Edwards

Not because Kerry has Edwards on his ticked, but because I would like to see the ticket turned around ("Edwards/Kerry"). Possibly because I'm a Texan (and before you ask, I am a Republican. So most of you liberals are already getting ready to flame me.)

I have a right to my opinion

What we really need is another Clinton! Think about it. When Clinton was in office, the tech sector was going through the roof and people were making money hand over fist. It's hard to believe now that in 1999, Newsweek actually ran a cover with a cartoon woman crying and saying, "Why aren't I rich yet?" Being rich was that common. People who worked in HOME FRIGGIN' DEPOT were millionaires off their 401(k) plans! Then Bush came in and let all the good jobs be outsourced to India and the economy go down the toilet just so all his golf buddies could save money.
Besides, under Clinton, the White House was a lot more fun....

Tech was a bubble. Reagan was real growth.

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany, and the United Nations Security Council. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

John Kerry specifically says we should have sent troops to Iraq with proper equipment, such as body armor (as opposed to George Bush sending them with spitballs). Hmm...

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. Feel free to ask questions.

Both Cheney and bush used words like "Sensitive" when talking about the War on terror.
So tell me who is a Hyprocrite: Kerry when he says something or them when they are against what he said when they say it too?
I think that makes Cheney a hypocrite.

Well, as far fiscal and economic issues go, I don't have a problem with conservatism. However, I don't like it when politicians pander to big business at the expense of the people.
But as far as personal and social issues go, I have to lean to the left. People should have the freedom of choice in their own private lives, which the government has no business regulating.
The government also has no business imposing religious garbage upon the people, either. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.

Exactly! I bet people would be amazed at how many Conservatives know Bush is not even close to being Conservative. But still when you have a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle the commie. I have to go with the dummy over the commie.

Are people still scared of the communist bogeymen? Do you need a dollar sign nigh-light, little boy?

Are people still scared of the communist bogeymen? Do you need a dollar sign nigh-light, little boy?

"I don't know what communism is, accept that it's the devil! H'yuk!"

Well I think American lives are much more important than any one else. So if we will them ALL in our defence I won't blink an eye in sadness because to surive in such a time as this you must take drastic action to insure your own survival.

Beliefs in racial sumpremacy tend to lead to blind, excessive, extreme nationalism, militarism, and war. Adolf Hitler, anyone?

Are people still scared of the communist bogeymen? Do you need a dollar sign nigh-light, little boy?

I'm still scared of the commie boogie men.

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.


You mean ... you have to wait until someone hits you in order to hit back? Damn ... who would have thought of that? Oh wait ... every State in the nation with self-defense laws thought of it ...

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany, and the United Nations Security Council. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

Yes ... heaven forbid we actually realize that we are not the only nation affected by our wars ...

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

Eisenhower also said, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

Great! I'd rather my taxes go to help people go to college and get medical treatment than go to a useless and morally reprehensible war.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

And how much has the war cost us so far ....

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

So what? He gets new information and absorbs it into his collective learning. It means he has the capacity to learn, unlike Bush who makes a decision and stands by it no matter what.

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Ummmm ... Dick Cheney wanted to cut the F-16, the B-2, the AH-64 Apache, the M-1 Abrams tank, the B-52, and he cut thousands of active duty, reserve, and civilian forces, proposed over 70 base closures all as Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr.

So ... did he flip-flop and decide it was ok to help out the military?

Cheney Admits One Year After Iraq War Began That Troops Lacked Body Armor. The war on Iraq commenced in March 2003. In an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News on March 17, 2004, one year later, Cheney said, "I believe the chief of staff of the Army and the vice chief -- vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified recently that all of our troops in Iraq are now properly equipped with the newest body armor. So there were -- the main problem had been just the sheer capacity to produce these items early on." [Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume, 3/17/04]

Bush Administration Made At Least Five Separate Promises to Provide Body Armor; Despite Recent Claims, Some Troops Still Waiting. The Bush Administration first promised that all troops would be fully equipped with body armor by the end of November 2003. They continued to extend the deadline to the end of December, January, and then February, until they finally claimed in March 2004 that all troops were equipped with body armor. However, Major General Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, reported in March that, "We are still short a significant amount of vehicles, radios, and body armor to properly equip [soldiers]." The AP reported in late March, "Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor - and in many cases, their families are buying it for them - despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way." [House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 9/24/03; UPI, 12/3/03; Hartford Courant, 1/11/04; House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 2/12/04; Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, 3/2/04; NY Daily News, 3/11/04; AP, 3/26/04]

NOPE! Well, guess we can say one thing about Cheney ... he consistently ignores the needs of the military.

Well Kerry would renew a ban that is going to expire in 4 days 5 hours and 20 minutes. Obviously nobody is crying about it expiring because it did nothing for banning what they wanted to ban.

Bush has said he will uphold that ban as well.

Beliefs in racial sumpremacy tend to lead to blind, excessive, extreme nationalism, militarism, and war. Adolf Hitler, anyone?

So you would let the USA be taken over (not to say it will be but if it was)if the only other option was to kill everyone else.

How about more on Cheney's dedication to the men and women in uniform?

In 1981, Cheney Voted Against Raising Military Pay for Senior and Junior Enlisted Personnel. In 1981, Cheney voted against an amendment to increase the pay of senior enlisted personnel by 18-22 percent and the basic pay of junior enlisted personnel by 7-9 percent. The amendment was rejected 170-232. [1981 CQ Almanac, p.66-H, vote #192]

In 1982, Cheney Voted Against Authorizing Military Pay Raise. In 1982, Cheney voted against the "Uniformed Services Pay Act" which would have authorized a pay raise in FY 1983 for uniformed members of the armed services. The bill would have also restricted the hiring of private contractors to perform Department of Defense services. The vote was a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The motion was rejected 214-186. [1982 CQ Almanac, p.98-H, vote #330]

As Congressman, Cheney Consistently Voted Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, Cheney was one of a small number of House members to passage of bills that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. In 1983, Cheney voted against bringing a bill to the House floor and paired against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. In 1981, Cheney was one of only 41 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided business loans and additional educational benefits to Vietnam veterans. In 1983, Cheney was one of only 30 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that would have provided $54 million for Agent Orange studies and $75 million for the Emergency Veterans Jobs Training Act. [H.R. 7631, 1980 CQ Almanac, p. 119-H, #395; H.R. 4034, 1981 CQ Almanac, p. 53-H, #138; p. 67-H, #191; H.R. 6956, 1982 CQ Almanac, p. 95-H, #314; p. 7-F, P.L. 97-272; H.R. 3133, 1983 CQ Almanac, p. 44-H, #137; p. 65-H, #215; H.R. 3038, 1985 CQ Almanac, p. 77-H, #236; p. 115-H, #368; H.R. 5313, 1986 CQ Almanac, p. 101-H, #353; H.R. 2783, 1987 CQ Almanac, p. 101-H, #328; H.R. 4800, 1988 CQ Almanac, p. 64-H, #198; p. 86-H, #268; H.R. 3423, 1981 CQ Almanac, p. 29-H, #51; H.R. 3959, 1983 CQ Almanac, p. 109-H, #363]

Oh! I know ... how about Cheney's own military service ...

Cheney Had "Other Priorities" During Vietnam War. Vice President Dick Cheney received five deferments during the Vietnam War from 1963 to 1966, a period of heightened American commitment in Vietnam. He later dismissed questions about his failure to serve by simply saying, "I had other priorities in the '60s." [McGrory, Washington Post, 7/27/00; Geyer, Chicago Tribune, 2/6/04; Arizona Republic, 1/22/04]

Cheney and Bush Campaign Distort Record of Cheney's Deferments. The Washington Post reported in 1991 that Cheney received five deferments, four 2-S student deferments and one under the 3-A classification -- "registrant with a child or children; or registrant deferred by reason of extreme hardship to dependents." In his Senate confirmation hearing, Cheney said he "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called," which contradicting his earlier statement, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Bush staff members said Cheney received only three deferments, two for school and one for being a new father. [Washington Post, 4/3/91; Des Moines Register, 8/2/00]

Gee ... for being such good "Christians", they forgot about that whole mote speck and eye parable ... goodness ...

KERRY/EDWARDS 2004!

Beliefs in racial sumpremacy tend to lead to blind, excessive, extreme nationalism, militarism, and war. Adolf Hitler, anyone?

Unfortunately people will reject this astute analogy out of hand because people discount any comparison between Hitler and modern day democratic leaders. People forget that Adolf was democratically elected.

The ends do not justify the means, and pre-emption is evil. This is not to say that we cannot defend against an assault against us. Far from it. Our military will be able to attack any conventional force before it really gets started. As long as America spends more on Defense than the rest of the world combined, we don't ever have to worry about invasion.

Now, if we know enough about a country to know an attack is imminent, don't we know enough to stop them in their tracks?

How does a pre-emptive attack on a Country defend us from terrorists who have operatives in just about every country in the world?

All in all, the doctorine of pre-emption is the single most dangerous idea America has ever had.

I don't really think that this thread has much of a purpose, but I feel it is necessary to balance the board.

So conservatives, (actually, I only really care about Paxania answering) explain why Kerry will be bad for America.
John Kerry is a war criminal who massacred inncocent women and children and shot unarmed enemy soldiers as they were surrendering.

Ok ok ok ... I know ... obviously Cheney has no heart for the men, but what about the mission?

Cheney: Ousting Saddam in 1991 Would "Not Have Been Easy" -- New Government Difficult to Establish. "There were ample reasons for the first President Bush not to go after Mr. Hussein. The current vice president and then the secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, outlined some of them in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1992, when he said: 'If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein -- assuming we could have found him -- we'd have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've got to put a new government in his place, and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shia government or a Sunni government?' Mr. Cheney continued. 'How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation?'" [New York Times, 12/16/03]

Yes, Mr. Cheney, please answer for us those questions ... we're dying to know (well, at least 1004 of us are).

John Kerry is a war criminal who massacred inncocent women and children and shot unarmed enemy soldiers as they were surrendering.

You mean in the government ordered free-fire zones which even John O'Neill admits to taking part in? Those same free-fire zones that the soldiers were not told was outlawed by the Geneva convention?

What the hell? Communists? What year am I in? 1947? Who are you people? Get back in your time machine and return to the era you belong in. I'm sure it was much better for you back then: cross-burnings, black people out of your restaurants and in the back of busses, and jews not cluttering up your golf courses. I thought we got passed this "commie" nonsense. I find it disturbing some of you out there would continue spit this stuff out. Do civilization a favor: keep your archaic paranoid conservative ejaculations to yourself.

Didn't Hitler do a Pre-emption attak versus Jews so they would do harm later in life ?
Gee, Pre-pre-emption can be bad...

I can't think of one good pre-emption in past history, can you? (You can't count Iraq before that I meant)

Alright, then, some of you have been saying, "Cheney's not President!" ... fine then ... how about Bush?

Bush Opposed the Creation of a Homeland Security Department
Bush opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it in November 2002, thus delaying its launch until February 2003. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush told Congress "there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security," and Tom Ridge, then director of the non-agency White House Office of Homeland Security, said "I'd probably recommend that he veto" any bill creating a new agency. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01; National Journal, 6/5/02; George W. Bush, 11/19/02]

Bush Cuts State and Local Funding to Deal With Terror Threats
Bush cut funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, which supplies a variety of first-responder grants to state and local governments, by $800 million, to $3.6 billion in 2005 from $4.4 billion in 2004. [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov; Congressional Quarterly, www.CQ.com]

Bush Gives Short Shrift to First-Responders
Bush cut FIRE Act grants for equipment and personnel to local fire departments by $246 million in his 2005 budget. According to the International Association of Firefighters, "The FIRE Act grant program has received $5 billion worth of requests," and "has awarded grants totaling just 10% of that need." Kevin O'Connor of the International Association of Firefighters said, "This [2005] budget is profoundly disappointing to first responders ... It's a continuation of the president's lack of commitment to first responders in general and firefighters in particular." [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov; Intl. Assoc. of Firefighters, www.iaff.org; United Press International, 2/2/04; www.cfr.org]

Bush cut state and local grant funding for first responder training, exercise, and technical assistance by nearly half, from $320 million in 2004 to $178 million in 2005. According to the House Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee, analysts estimate that funding for "critical needs" of emergency responders will fall $98.4 billion short over the next five years. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk, 1/04]

The International Association of Chiefs of Police said in February 2004: "Targeting law enforcement assistance programs for reductions of this magnitude [in the Bush 2005 budget] has the potential to significantly weaken the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to protect our communities from both traditional acts of crime and the new specter of terrorism. This is unacceptable." [IACP, www.theiacp.org]

The US Conference of Mayors survey on homeland security funding reported that "for some programs, we have actually lost ground" since the first survey in August 2003. The mayors reported an increase in cities that are not expecting Urban Area Security funding, are dissatisfied with the state planning process, have not been reimbursed for increase homeland security enforcement costs, are not receiving Port Security Grant money and are not getting Mass Transit Security Grant Program funds. [US Conference of Mayors convention, Homeland Security Panel, 1/22/04]

The U.S. Conference of Mayors survey on homeland security funding reported that while federal funding to cities for federal first responder/critical infrastructure and state domestic preparedness programs had improved somewhat, they "continue to fall far short of meeting this nation's goal of homeland security for our cities," and are "still far short of an acceptable level." Seventy six percent of cities reported that they had not yet received first-responder/critical infrastructure funding. [US Conference of Mayors convention, Homeland Security Panel, 1/22/04]

I can go on and on and on .... but I don't think I have to.

The facts speak for themselves. Wake up, Bush supporters. You're backing a hypocrite and a liar ... and there's proof of both.

All you've got are waffles.

Supply side economics coupled with the deregulation of the savings and loans worked just great! when the flash building boom slowed we were left with empty strip malls and half finished condos: granny's savings were gone with Neal Bush; and We The People had 400 billion added to our debt which had already gone to trillions. Sorry, I am not buying that again. "read my Lips' and suffer the consequences.

So you would let the USA be taken over (not to say it will be but if it was)if the only other option was to kill everyone else.

You're saying that because these people live in the United States, they are therefore more worthy to live. I'm a US citizen, I live in Illinois, but I think that it would be better for everyone in the US to be killed if it meant that people like you couldn't gain power over the military. Meaning that it is perfectly acceptable to kill millions, even billions of people in defence of that? Do you know the last person who believed that by killing of groups of people in order to "defend our country" was Adolf Hitler? He too was going for world domination.

You mean in the government ordered free-fire zones which even John O'Neill admits to taking part in? Those same free-fire zones that the soldiers were not told was outlawed by the Geneva convention?
When you are in the military, you are taught there is no such thing as a free fire zone. Further, you are taught that you have a duty under US and international law to refuse all illegal orders, specifcally, those that violate the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war.
The orders in question clearly violated both. Kerry was smart, he knew this, yet he carried them out any way.
The fact he "was just following orders" in no way absolves him of his guilt.

If anything, he ought to be facing a war crimes tribunal.

So you would let the USA be taken over (not to say it will be but if it was)if the only other option was to kill everyone else.

If, after exterminating the entire rest of the word, you found out the reasons for it were as flimsy as the reasons for going to Iraq, how could you possibly make up for that mistake?

To take another view of this: If the entire rest of the world was against us, there'd probably be a very good reason for it, and so therefore I'd escape the country. The entire world doesn't get riled up for no reason.

...Hmmm, now that's got me wondering about the U.S.'s plummeting global approval ratings...

When you are in the military, you are taught there is no such thing as a free fire zone. Further, you are taught that you have a duty under US and international law to refuse all illegal orders, specifcally, those that violate the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war.
The orders in question clearly violated both. Kerry was smart, he knew this, yet he carried them out any way.
The fact he "was just following orders" in no way absolves him of his guilt.

If anything, he ought to be facing a war crimes tribunal.

Then so should every Veteran who took part in the free-fire zones. That'd be just about every Swift Boat Vet, wouldn't it? How many countless others? Gee, way to support the military, jerkoff.

The fact he "was just following orders" in no way absolves him of his guilt.

If anything, he ought to be facing a war crimes tribunal.


As should the 56,000 people who died defending your right to say that...

When you are in the military, you are taught there is no such thing as a free fire zone. Further, you are taught that you have a duty under US and international law to refuse all illegal orders, specifcally, those that violate the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war.
The orders in question clearly violated both. Kerry was smart, he knew this, yet he carried them out any way.
The fact he "was just following orders" in no way absolves him of his guilt.

If anything, he ought to be facing a war crimes tribunal.

Let me see if I have your reasoning right. John Kerry, who was brave enough to stand up to the government against the wrongs commited in it's name, is more guilty than the 10's of thousands who engaged in free fire zones, villiage burnings, and search and destroy missions who remained silent or, even worse, still claim that such things were justified and yet still want to condemn Kerry?

Paxania, open your eyes a little bit and think about the possibility that the neo conservative angle isnt neccesarily the right one.

Kerry's proposed 'rise in taxes' are simply to take back the ridiculous 1.7 trillion dollar tax cut that Bush introduced in the 7 months of his pre-S11 presidency.
Those cuts were ridiculous in that they widened the wealth gap in the US considerably. The richest 1 percent of americans recieved something like a $40,000 annual tax cut whilst the poorest 10 percent recieved a several hundred dollar annual tax cut. That's making the rich considerably richer whilst making the poor a tiny little bit less poor. Bush's policies have been reasonably backward and christian-based, whilst kerry would most likely look out for all americans.

Bush's proposed amendment to the US constitution to take away the right of states to legalize gay marriage and to redefine marriage as a union between one man and one woman is the first amendment ever proposed thats designed to restrict liberties rather than expand them. Why does he care so much about gay marriage? because he is one of the leading christian-right figures in the USA. what ever happened to SEPARATION of church and state?

Paxania, do you really think that the war on Iraq had any real justification?
Iraq had insignificant links to al queda, there werent even any WMD programs still active in Iraq, let alone any actual weapons, and the humanitarian situation in Iraq is no better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Its just americans, resistance fighters and terrorists are doing the killing now instead of the baathists. Pre emptive strikes are especially stupid when there's nothing to pre-empt.

Yoo-Hooooo, East Whittier, you haven't answered my question!

I don't trust him. He's sure to be for something and against it once its unpopular.

I don't trust him. He's sure to be for something and against it once its unpopular.


Gee, yeah, it'd really suck if the President followed the will of the people...you know, like they're supposed to.

So you would let the USA be taken over (not to say it will be but if it was)if the only other option was to kill everyone else.

I doubt it would ever come to that. I condone fighting terrorists with force, but the destruction of civilians is never justified. Moreover, although I am proud to be an American and America is my favorite nation, I do not believe that Americans are inferior or superior to any other people on earth.

Or Cheech & Chong for that matter.
Indecision has never been a strength admirable to a world leader. [FONT=Arial]:headbang: :rolleyes:

I have seen the these comments in this thread:

"Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible." - Siljhouettes

and

"The ends do not justify the means, and pre-emption is evil." - Gymoor


I have to ask you, by what standard of morality is pre-emption morally indefensible or evil? What philosophical system tells you this? What *is* moral in your system?

This whole thread has put the cart before the horse. Politics is a deriviative of philosophy. Until everyone can identify in *explicit* terms the tenets of their individual philsophy, (especially the rights of man and from where they are derivative) the opinions expressed will be contradictory and confused.

My answer to the original question:

1. Both Bush and Kerry are political pragmatists who pander to altruist ethics. They believe that individuals are to be commanded and taxed for 'good' of the collective, in accordance with the collective wishes of the nation. The only way they differ is that one believes we should "do it for god" and the other would have us "do it for the good of the world as a whole." Many of you here are expousing the same views.

2. I will not vote for Kerry for one simple reason: right now the war in Iraq, and the greater struggle against Islam is the most important thing to worry about. If that is not resolved correctly, there will be no one left to argue with. Mr. Kerry's approach is, as has been mentioned, *explicitly* subservient. He has said directly that he would delay taking action in favor of the U.N.'s decisions. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The day the U.S. gives up its soverignty is the day the whole world is in a lot of trouble.

I doubt it would ever come to that. I condone fighting terrorists with force, but the destruction of civilians is never justified. Moreover, although I am proud to be an American and America is my favorite nation, I do not believe that Americans are inferior or superior to any other people on earth.


About civilian targets: The destruction of civilians is indeed justified. The point of war is to destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight. The U.S. and her allies would be having far fewer problems in Iraq if we had leveled Fallujah instead of ceding it. Hell, had we not attacked civilian centers in Germany and Japan, we may not have won WWII. No, the citizens of a nation are responsible for the nation's actions. Just as the U.S. is held accountable by the world for its actions, so must other nations be held accountable for theirs - even if they must be held accountable for their inaction in the face of dictatorships and oppression from within.

As for superiority: Americans as individuals are not intrinsically superior, no, but America as a nation is indeed superior. Americans have the most free government on earth - and that is not an accident. Though we have our share of social problems, we still have a political system that respects the individual, respects achievement, and allows her people to be free. We have one of the highest standards of living and best political freedoms of any nation on Earth, and this is no accident either. It is not due to geographic isolation, an abundance of resources, or "American Imperialism". Rather, it is because of all the nations to ever be erected on the planet, the U.S. is the only one founded on *ideals* - ideals of freedom and individualism instead of ethnicity or social class. It is *this* that has let our most brilliant minds and achievers be free to create. As wealth is not a zero-sum concept, it is creation - not theft - that creates wealth. When people are free to create, wealth is inevitable.

So no offense to those of you in the U.K. and elsewhere - to suggest that the U.S. is ranked on top is not to place anyone else in particular on the bottom.

Bush's proposed amendment to the US constitution to take away the right of states to legalize gay marriage and to redefine marriage as a union between one man and one woman is the first amendment ever proposed thats designed to restrict liberties rather than expand them. Why does he care so much about gay marriage? because he is one of the leading christian-right figures in the USA. what ever happened to SEPARATION of church and state?

Whoa, wait: redefine?

Let me see if I have your reasoning right. John Kerry, who was brave enough to stand up to the government against the wrongs commited in it's name, is more guilty than the 10's of thousands who engaged in free fire zones, villiage burnings, and search and destroy missions who remained silent or, even worse, still claim that such things were justified and yet still want to condemn Kerry?

John Kerry as an officer in the military with an elite education, bears more responsibility for what happened than someone who was an enlisted person at the time. An officer is always responsible for all actions of those under them.
While an enlisted person may have the excuse that he was just following orders and might actually be able to use it in his own defense, this in no way applies to Mr. Kerry.
The records show, that Mr. Kerry shot an unarmed Vietnamese soldier as that soldier was in the act of surrender. And from his own lips, he admitted to deliberately ordering the torching of villages and the slaughter of innocent women and children who posed no threat to him or his unit. Not all of Vietnam was considered a free fire zone. John Kerry committed most of these acts, outside of all the free fire zones. Unfortunately, from appearances, the incident was deliberately embellished so that he could get a purple heart, and hence, flee Vietnam. I have not heard of any other Purple Heart winners, using their purple hearts as "ticket out of Vietnam". John Kerry seems to be the only one.
John Kerry, had a better handle on what was right and wrong in war, than most of the enlisted men under his command, many of whom were high school drop outs.
The other war criminals from Vietnam would include LB Johnson, and Robert McNamara. Unfortunately, they're both dead and hence cannot be brought to justice.
The responsibility lies with the chain command, with the officers, with those who knew right from wrong. The enlisted looked up to the officers for guidance. This in no way absolves the guilt of the other people who committed the atrocities despite the fact they knew what they were doing violated the international laws of war and the UCMJ.

Gee, yeah, it'd really suck if the President followed the will of the people...you know, like they're supposed to.

IMO, it is the job of the president to do what he thinks is right for the country. It is the job of the people to elect someone who thinks like the most of them (And please no crap about Gore 2000. It's now a moot point). The president's thoughts should not be governed by a weekly focus group poll.

Paxania, open your eyes a little bit and think about the possibility that the neo conservative angle isnt neccesarily the right one.

Kerry's proposed 'rise in taxes' are simply to take back the ridiculous 1.7 trillion dollar tax cut that Bush introduced in the 7 months of his pre-S11 presidency.

So technically, still a 'raise in taxes'?

Those cuts were ridiculous in that they widened the wealth gap in the US considerably. The richest 1 percent of americans recieved something like a $40,000 annual tax cut whilst the poorest 10 percent recieved a several hundred dollar annual tax cut.

Lets see... if the top 50% pay 96.03% of the tax in this country (these figures from the IRS, latest numbers are from 2001, http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), then the bottom 50% are paying 3.97% (these figures from my superior math skills). I think we can make a reasonable assumption that the poorest 10% are paying little or no tax, thereby not eligible for a tax cut. Can't get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes.

Bush's proposed amendment to the US constitution to take away the right of states to legalize gay marriage and to redefine marriage as a union between one man and one woman is the first amendment ever proposed thats designed to restrict liberties rather than expand them. Why does he care so much about gay marriage? because he is one of the leading christian-right figures in the USA. what ever happened to SEPARATION of church and state?

Seperation of church and state was created by a judge some time ago when he misinterpreted the contitution, more specifically, The 1st Amendment. Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words, there will be no 'official' US religion established by our government. It doesn't say anywhere that a leader cannot base judgement on his faith.

And we had it! We had the inteligence of the CIA, MI6, Russia, and Jordan! We had the Coalition of the Willing! We had the support of the international community no matter what Kerry says!

By the way, I don't know if those figures are accurate, but that's roughly 1000 people a month compared to 3000 people in an hour.

Are you going from Fahrenheit 9/11 too? That building he showed being bombed after he shhowed children playing in post-Saddam Iraq was the Ministry of Information. America's targeting systems are the most advanced in the world.

Are you saying America is bankrupt and economic growth cannot happen? :o I highly recommend GrowthDebt.com.

You misunderstood: the only money the government has is what it takes in taxes.

Before he voted against it...

I'm seeing the evidence.

Smart move!
The coalition was made of 49 nations, many of which did not even have any military! Only the US and Britain were really serious about it. More factoids: outside America, only a majority of the people in Israel were in favour of the war. In every other country, even those in the Coalition of the "Willing", large ajorities were anti-war. For example, 65% of Britons and 90% of Spaniards were anti-war.

The rate of mass murder doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the adventure. We're talking about humans, not numbers.

Advanced copared to others or not, 13,000 dead civilians is not a hallmark of military accuracy. I'm not even counting the dead from Iraq's pitiful "army".

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the Bush admin hasn't been fiscally responsible. Even if you are so certain that the US will never have to pay it's debt back, it's unwise to accumulate it.

Yeah, and Bush lowered taxes too much.

"Kerry voted for body armour before he voted against it! OMG Flip-flop!!!1!"
Nice Republican party line. Please learn how congressional voting works. I'm not even American and I appear to know more about it than you, which is pitiful. Kerry voted against a different version of the bill that he voted for. The one he voted for took money from the higher tax bracket. The one he voted against took money from the lower tax bracket. Many Republicans voted against the former in order to protect the Bush tax cut. Funny, we never hear about them.

Yes, it is a smart move.

That's basically it. Kerry is beyond leftwing. His economic policy is the absence of economics and is borderline communism.
Do you even know what communism is?

As for taxes, some one better raise them in the US or stop spending so much money, the IMF has already told the USA they are on their way to being bankrupt. Economics is how most implode, apparently the USA will be no exception.

As for taxes, some one better raise them in the US or stop spending so much money, the IMF has already told the USA they are on their way to being bankrupt. Economics is how most implode, apparently the USA will be no exception.
America owns the IMF. We set their rules and policies.

I have seen the these comments in this thread:

"Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible." - Siljhouettes

and

"The ends do not justify the means, and pre-emption is evil." - Gymoor

I have to ask you, by what standard of morality is pre-emption morally indefensible or evil? What philosophical system tells you this? What *is* moral in your system?

My answer to the original question:

1. Both Bush and Kerry are political pragmatists who pander to altruist ethics. They believe that individuals are to be commanded and taxed for 'good' of the collective, in accordance with the collective wishes of the nation. The only way they differ is that one believes we should "do it for god" and the other would have us "do it for the good of the world as a whole." Many of you here are expousing the same views.

2. I will not vote for Kerry for one simple reason: right now the war in Iraq, and the greater struggle against Islam is the most important thing to worry about. If that is not resolved correctly, there will be no one left to argue with. Mr. Kerry's approach is, as has been mentioned, *explicitly* subservient. He has said directly that he would delay taking action in favor of the U.N.'s decisions. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The day the U.S. gives up its soverignty is the day the whole world is in a lot of trouble.
You want to know why I think pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible? It's because they're based on reckless disregard for human life.

1. Yeah. Welcome to government. We own you.

2. I don't think Kerry ever said he would pull forces out of Iraq upon assuming office, nor is America engaged in a war against Islam.
Why do Americans have the idea that by not going militarily psycho on the world, they're surrendering their sovereignty?

America owns the IMF. We set their rules and policies.
Covering your ears and closing your eyes won't make the problems go away.

PS How many damn Whittiers are there? Are you all the same person?

You want to know why I think pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible? It's because they're based on reckless disregard for human life.

1. Yeah. Welcome to government. We own you.

2. I don't think Kerry ever said he would pull forces out of Iraq upon assuming office, nor is America engaged in a war against Islam.
Why do Americans have the idea that by not going militarily psycho on the world, they're surrendering their sovereignty?

Poderetti got MODED!!!


lol sorry I am going to bring that word back in style dammit!

I have seen the these comments in this thread:

"Pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible." - Siljhouettes

and

"The ends do not justify the means, and pre-emption is evil." - Gymoor


I have to ask you, by what standard of morality is pre-emption morally indefensible or evil? What philosophical system tells you this? What *is* moral in your system?

This whole thread has put the cart before the horse. Politics is a deriviative of philosophy. Until everyone can identify in *explicit* terms the tenets of their individual philsophy, (especially the rights of man and from where they are derivative) the opinions expressed will be contradictory and confused.

My answer to the original question:

1. Both Bush and Kerry are political pragmatists who pander to altruist ethics. They believe that individuals are to be commanded and taxed for 'good' of the collective, in accordance with the collective wishes of the nation. The only way they differ is that one believes we should "do it for god" and the other would have us "do it for the good of the world as a whole." Many of you here are expousing the same views.

2. I will not vote for Kerry for one simple reason: right now the war in Iraq, and the greater struggle against Islam is the most important thing to worry about. If that is not resolved correctly, there will be no one left to argue with. Mr. Kerry's approach is, as has been mentioned, *explicitly* subservient. He has said directly that he would delay taking action in favor of the U.N.'s decisions. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The day the U.S. gives up its soverignty is the day the whole world is in a lot of trouble.

Okay. Pre-emption is immoral and indefensible if you think about it this way:

If I, as a citizen, kill a single person, and use as my excuse that I had to pre-emptively kill him because I had evidence he might try to kill me, I'd be thrown in jail...especially if my evidence against the person I murdered turned out to be phony. And guess what, it'd be proven that it was premeditated, so I'd get 1st degree murder.

Are you saying that the killing of 13,000 people, or the start of any war should be held to a lower standard?

1. As I have no proof of God, but I do have proof that the world exists, I think I'd prefer the candidate who does things for the good of the planet.

2. Kerry said directly that he will never allow another country to veto the security of the United States. Working towards collaborative partnerships in our war on terror is not the same as being subservient...something both you and Mr Bush need to learn. I will not vote for Bush, since I clearly see that his foreign and domestic policies are self-destructive, and that Bush is so stubborn, that he will not change even what has been proven to be a failure.

Are you saying that the killing of 13,000 people, or the start of any war should be held to a lower standard?
Yes. Nations and international law don't draw correct analogies to people and domestic law.

Yes. Nations and international law don't draw correct analogies to people and domestic law.

Nice of you to say so, but wherre's your argument?

Nice of you to say so, but wherre's your argument?
I'm saying its a false analogy. In my opinion, pre-emption - attacking before being attacked - is prefectly moral and defensible when you're taking out someone like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosovic. After all, breaking domestic law, like say the fugitive slave law back in the 1800's, would be in my opinion moral although illegal, and breaking the law dosen't necessarily make an action immoral or indefensible. Besides, a more correct analogy to make would be where you end up killing someone because the police are woefully inadequate and he's a proven criminal, at least in terms of Iraq.

I'm saying its a false analogy. In my opinion, pre-emption - attacking before being attacked - is prefectly moral and defensible when you're taking out someone like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosovic. After all, breaking domestic law, like say the fugitive slave law back in the 1800's, would be in my opinion moral although illegal, and breaking the law dosen't necessarily make an action immoral or indefensible. Besides, a more correct analogy to make would be where you end up killing someone because the police are woefully inadequate and he's a proven criminal, at least in terms of Iraq.

Yes, but a main purpose of the Constitution is limiting the amount of power than can be wielded by governemnt. Pre-emption is a dangerous precedent, especially in this case where the intelligence was faulty, that allows governments to conduct wars of choice. Anyone can make the claim that a war is in the best interests of the nation in question, and in cases of pre-emtion, the justification is always suspect. If you think about it, every war ever started was based on a doctorine of pre-emption, and it's usually the agressors, especially if they don't win, that are found to be the villians. When you're talking about thousands (or more) of civilians killed, and the atrocities that war inevitably brings, of course war must be started only in cases of unimpeachable reasoning, and pre-emption derails that.

Covering your ears and closing your eyes won't make the problems go away.

PS How many damn Whittiers are there? Are you all the same person?
Are you seeing things? There is only one Whittier.

Yes, but a main purpose of the Constitution is limiting the amount of power than can be wielded by governemnt. Pre-emption is a dangerous precedent, especially in this case where the intelligence was faulty, that allows governments to conduct wars of choice. Anyone can make the claim that a war is in the best interests of the nation in question, and in cases of pre-emtion, the justification is always suspect. If you think about it, every war ever started was based on a doctorine of pre-emption, and it's usually the agressors, especially if they don't win, that are found to be the villians. When you're talking about thousands (or more) of civilians killed, and the atrocities that war inevitably brings, of course war must be started only in cases of unimpeachable reasoning, and pre-emption derails that.
But are thousands of civilians killed now any worse than thousands of civilians, whether they be Albanians, Kurds, Tutsis, or whatever, that will inevitably be killed later as long as certain governments reign?

But are thousands of civilians killed now any worse than thousands of civilians, whether they be Albanians, Kurds, Tutsis, or whatever, that will inevitably be killed later as long as certain governments reign?

The only difference being that we're paying for it in both money and our soldiers. All this without any proof that things will necessarily change for the better. Did North Vietnam improve after the Vietnam war?

About civilian targets: The destruction of civilians is indeed justified. The point of war is to destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight.

You make a good point, and I agree, but that's not what I meant. I think the deliberate and unfeeling destruction of civilians is never justified. But if attacking areas where civilians are is necessary to ending a war faster, than, yes, I think it's justified.

The other war criminals from Vietnam would include LB Johnson, and Robert McNamara. Unfortunately, they're both dead and hence cannot be brought to justice.

Actually, McNamara is still alive. He's in his late eighties.

The only difference being that we're paying for it in both money and our soldiers. All this without any proof that things will necessarily change for the better. Did North Vietnam improve after the Vietnam war?
No, it didn't. No 'communist' country has ever prospered to my knowledge, at least while they were still in their delusional phase where they tried to implement 'communist' policies. And of course we'd be paying for it with our money and our soldiers. As the most powerful country in the world, we're one of the only countries capable of such an undertaking.

No, it didn't. No 'communist' country has ever prospered to my knowledge, at least while they were still in their delusional phase where they tried to implement 'communist' policies. And of course we'd be paying for it with our money and our soldiers. As the most powerful country in the world, we're one of the only countries capable of such an undertaking.

Okay, to use your logic, has any Middle Eastern country ever prospered, especially while still under the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism. Remember the majority of Iraqi citizens are Shi'ites, so any "Government by the people" will place them in power.

Thanks, your argument was really useful to me.

Okay, to use your logic, has any Middle Eastern country ever prospered, especially while still under the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism. Remember the majority of Iraqi citizens are Shi'ites, so any "Government by the people" will place them in power.

Thanks, your argument was really useful to me.
You're making the false assumptions that :

A.) Everyone will vote strictly on religious lines

and that,

B.) The religious majority (Shi'ites) will elect extremists

Its likely that the government will have some form of Islamic influence, yes, but that dosen't necessarily equate to extremism, as Turkey's current government shows.

I would say that the primary complaint by Muslims (moderate or extreme) against America is that Uncle Sam is taking it upon itself the role of Leviathan. If you recall, Hobbes was justifying the claims of absolute monarchy against democracy. Pre-emptive strike (justified as a police action against a criminal dictator) is immoral because it is undemocratic. The motto of your own revolution was "no taxation without representation". The Iraqi people could equally say "no coercion without representation". In other words, if the security council of the United Nations had agreed that Hussein's Iraq was an immanent threat in the war on terror, then the action would have had some legitimacy. Although the security council is really just another version of "might is right", it does have pretensions to representing the security interests of every human (rather than just 5% of humanity). The United Nations is a forum where the interests of the citizens of Iraq are, at least, represented. The fact is, in that forum it was decided that there was insufficient evidence of a threat to justify an invasion of the cities of a civilized society. The evil of the coalition's imposition of democracy is one of moral hypocrisy.

I belive the person who metioned the anti-gay marrige amendment has forgotten about Prohibition. It was an amendment that told others how to live and was very morals based. It didn't work and was repealled. I believe this is the fate of all morals enforcement amendments. By the way, not defending Bush, just fixing a bit of history.

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.
It is the docterine of preemption that has made us so weak and put us in so much peril. First of all, Bush sure as hell didn't do anything to prevent 9/11 so he picked an odd time to jump on the preemption bandwagon. Plus given that we had been enforcing the no-fly zones and the embargos for a dozen years, Iraq was in no way capable of attacking the US. So what did we get out of the preemptive strikes? Overall, our net security is way down thanks to Bush.

Of course, to go to war, we'll need the support of the "international community," meaning France and Germany, and the United Nations Security Council. No one else matters; not the UK, Denmark, the Czech Republic, they're not real nations!

You are of course implying that we are in Iraq with some kind of massive coalition. The US has of course been doing 90% of the work taking 95% of the casualties http://icasualties.org/oif/. 1005 US soldiers dead 65 from the UK and 66 from all others.

Of course, the war will have to be fought with sensitivity and a "plan to win the peace." Of course, Dwight Eisenhower once said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." He understands things in the context of "you raise taxes, the taxpayers pay them."

Oooh, I'm telling Deferment Dick Cheny on you! You said the "S" word!

...which brings us to the issue of domestic policy. John Kerry wants to raise taxes. Oh, he says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, but if you drive or own a home, John Kerry thinks you're rich.

Let's see here, who is the fear monger? EEEK, if JFK gets elected he will raise your taxes, the economy will fail, and the terrorists will attack the US. Turns out, John Kerry will only roll back the tax cut for those that make more than $200,000 per year.

John Kerry says healthcare will be free, but here's the thing: the government has no money. You'll still be paying for it for yourself and illegal immigrants, via taxes.

Will health care cost more? Not necessarily. "According to a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, U.S. per capita health spending rose to $4,631 in 2000, which was an increase of 6.3 percent over the previous year. The U.S. level was 83 percent higher than Canada and 134 percent higher than the median of $1,983 in the other OECD member nations." That is per capita spending. We spend 83% more per person than Canada does and our system covers FAR fewer people. We wouldn't have to raise taxes for most or perhaps any Americans at all to have free healthcare. And ours could be the best in the world to boot.

John Kerry was against war in Iraq before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Hmm...

Yet another partisan mischaracterization of course. The fact of the matter is, John Kerry's position on Iraq has been absolutely steady. If you have a problem with inconsistent people, you should have a major problem with Bush. Bush is the one who just yesterday decided he would let the new intelligence chief have budgetary control when previously he was adamantly against it. Bush was the one who fought tooth and nail against the 9/11 commission and then supported it. Bush fought against the dept of homeland security, then supported it. Bush wanted Osama dead or alive then said that Osama wasn't important. Fact is, you don't care about inconsistencies any more than you care about facts.

John Kerry specifically says we should have sent troops to Iraq with proper equipment, such as body armor (as opposed to George Bush sending them with spitballs). Hmm...

You lost me. Are you saying we shouldn't have sent them with the proper equipment? Well you would be in agreement with the President who didn't send them with the right equipment and didn't fight for funding for that equipment until a year later.

John Kerry will stop all military technological progress; he has opposed every major weapons system and wanted a nuclear freeze in the Reagan days.

Wrong, completely wrong. Go here (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=147). Or take this:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

So, you feel comfortable that Cheney and Bush are making Kerry out to be weak on defense? Does it bother you that Cheney himself voted to slash spending on the programs that you hold so dear (the AH-64, the F-14, the F-16)? Is your head about to explode under all the pressure of the cognative dissonance? You should either feel like a hypocrite, or feel upset that you were lied to by the Bush administration. Anything else indicates that you are a hopeless partisan puppet.

Cause Kerry to far left, Bush is a terrible politician, my god we need another Ronald Reagan to president.

It is really odd to hear the lies and then hear all those who beleive the lies echo them as truth. Up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery, black is white.

John Kerry ranks right smack dab in the middle of the liberals in congress (don't take my word for it, go here (http://voteview.uh.edu/sen108.htm). He is no zig-zag Zell Miller, and he's no Barbara Boxer. Want to know who is the next most conservative below Kerry? Joe Lieberman. The whole Kerry being the most liberal senator is a complete baldface lie.

But maybe I should be used to that, the Bush adminstration (and their surrogates like Fox News) is the biggest bunch of liars this country has ever seen.

Here's a good reason

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/meet-pows.asp

He will dump the doctrine of preemptive strikes and leave America vulnerable. He wants an attack to happen before going to war.

And of course Bush's way of starting a war is better, lying to the american people.

And of course Bush's way of starting a war is better, lying to the american people.

Eh? He just repeated what the CIA told him. And guess who's responsible for crippling the CIA and the NSA over the past 20 years?

Here's a good reason

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/meet-pows.asp


Okay, so you're saying that starting a war, and risking the lives and health of 140,000, or 4,000,000, of our armed men and women is better than possibly unintentionally giving the enemy something to base their propaganda on by trying to fight a war you feel is completely unjust?

Do you think Kerry testified in order to get those men hurt? We should never fight injustice for the many, just in case the few get hurt?

In that case, war itself is never justified.

Okay, so you're saying that starting a war, and risking the lives and health of 140,000, or 4,000,000, of our armed men and women is better than possibly unintentionally giving the enemy something to base their propaganda on by trying to fight a war you feel is completely unjust?

Do you think Kerry testified in order to get those men hurt? We should never fight injustice for the many, just in case the few get hurt?

In that case, war itself is never justified.

Yes. You're truly a wretched creature if you believe nothing is worth fighting for.

By the way, Kerry was a vicious ideologue back in the 70's and little has changed. I'll leave it at that.

Yes. You're truly a wretched creature if you believe nothing is worth fighting for.

By the way, Kerry was a vicious ideologue back in the 70's and little has changed. I'll leave it at that.

I suppose Kerry eats babies and rapes little girls as well? Are you taking your medication?

I suppose Kerry eats babies and rapes little girls as well? Are you taking your medication?

What are you smoking? Kerry was a vicious ideologue because he slandered American soldiers, while they were at war, in front of Congrerss while under oath! And he knew the allegations were total fabrications!

What are you smoking? Kerry was a vicious ideologue because he slandered American soldiers, while they were at war, in front of Congrerss while under oath! And he knew the allegations were total fabrications!

He slandered American soldiers in front of congress while under oath. Gee, you better alert Congress to this, since lying to Congress under oath is a crime. Wait a minute, Kerry is a free man to this day because: A) Kerry was testifying as a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group thousands strong. B) Name a single lie that Kerry told. There are documented cases of atrocities occuring, and the testimony of the men Kerry represented.

I'm sorry that some prisoners suffered more because of the propaganda the Vietnamese made out of Kerry's words that you are happily spreading for them. How dare you spread Vietnamese propaganda, sir!

The conservatives dropped this thread like they dropped funding for our first responders.

Are you seeing things? There is only one Whittier.
Except for EastWhittier.

From the continued silence from the right, I can only assume: Swift BOat Vets for Lies = owned

Sorry for the delay in response.

You want to know why I think pre-emptive strikes are morally indefensible? It's because they're based on reckless disregard for human life.

You really believe that is true under any circumstances? As you have dropped context from your statement, you must. Moral judgments cannot be made without reference to context, or you are not talking about reality.

Let me inject context back into this. If a rights-respecting free nation has honest evidence to suppose that another poses an imminent threat, they have every right to defend themselves by eliminating that threat. The implicit suggestion you make is that in order to be morally justified, a nation must sit back and wait to be attacked. Then and only then may they defend themselves from the moral high ground.

Now, if an agressive state that does not respect indivdual rights uses the excuse of pre-emption to attack another nation, then I would agree with you that it is reckless and immoral, as its goal can only be a violation of the rights of the attacked nation. In such a circumstance you can be sure that the U.S. and other free, rights-respecting countries would come to the aid of the attacked nation if they can.



1. Yeah. Welcome to government. We own you.

The point here was not to reaffirm the ludicrous, but to stimulate discussion toward alternatives. No government should have the right to control the lives of those it is supposed to protect. Whether it is 'for the good of all' or 'for god', I find statism to be unacceptable, and urge you all to think of alternatives.


2. I don't think Kerry ever said he would pull forces out of Iraq upon assuming office, nor is America engaged in a war against Islam.
Why do Americans have the idea that by not going militarily psycho on the world, they're surrendering their sovereignty?

What Kerry did say is that he would have never gone to Iraq in the first place without U.N. consent. And recognize it or not, America is indeed in a war against Islam. It is not open and outright yet, but that will probably change soon enough.

Speaking only for myself, and not 'Americans' as a group, I can tell you that giving up our soverignty is not viewed as giving up the opportunity to 'go militarily psycho on the world', but rather having to ask France and other nations for permission to defend ourselves. This is what I find unacceptable.

Just out of curiosity Siljhouettes, where do you live?

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20040913%2FOpinion%2F109130009

Who exactly is the flip-flopper? This article should help you decide.

Okay. Pre-emption is immoral and indefensible if you think about it this way:

If I, as a citizen, kill a single person, and use as my excuse that I had to pre-emptively kill him because I had evidence he might try to kill me, I'd be thrown in jail...especially if my evidence against the person I murdered turned out to be phony. And guess what, it'd be proven that it was premeditated, so I'd get 1st degree murder.

As someone else remarked, the situations are not comparable. The rights of nations (which are collections of individuals) and the rights of individuals themselves derive from different sources, and they act fundamentally differently. This is a red herring.


Are you saying that the killing of 13,000 people, or the start of any war should be held to a lower standard?

No, I'm saying that they are held to a different standard because they are fundamentally different concepts, referent to fundamentally different aspects of reality.



1. As I have no proof of God, but I do have proof that the world exists, I think I'd prefer the candidate who does things for the good of the planet.

I am glad you acknowledge the existence of reality, however, the statism of both parties begs the question "who is qualified to determine what's good for you?" Personally, I prefer a candidate that protects my rights as an individual first and foremost.


2. Kerry said directly that he will never allow another country to veto the security of the United States. Working towards collaborative partnerships in our war on terror is not the same as being subservient...something both you and Mr Bush need to learn. I will not vote for Bush, since I clearly see that his foreign and domestic policies are self-destructive, and that Bush is so stubborn, that he will not change even what has been proven to be a failure.

Either Mr. Kerry has a different view of what the security of the United States entails, or he is engaged in his trademark pragmatism again, as the desire to obey the U.N. will eventually clash with the security needs of the United States.

Your ad hominems aside, I would point out to you and Mr. Kerry that '[w]orking towards collaborative partnerships in our war on terror' is not the same as deferring to the U.N.

Let's be clear on one more thing: I would consider myself an 'Anti-Bushite for Bush.' By no means is he my ideal candidate, but under his administration, I may at least have a chance to keep looking for the ideal before terrorists kill me.

As someone else remarked, the situations are not comparable. The rights of nations (which are collections of individuals) and the rights of individuals themselves derive from different sources, and they act fundamentally differently. This is a red herring.

I still think it's valid that you only carry out war if it's supported beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not think Iraq qualifies as such



No, I'm saying that they are held to a different standard because they are fundamentally different concepts, referent to fundamentally different aspects of reality.

While I agree that there are certain qualifiers that apply to War, but not to a murder investigation, and vice versa, my point still stands that whether it involves one person or 10,000, it's still a matter of life and death.



I am glad you acknowledge the existence of reality, however, the statism of both parties begs the question "who is qualified to determine what's good for you?" Personally, I prefer a candidate that protects my rights as an individual first and foremost.

Then you should be voting for Kerry.


Either Mr. Kerry has a different view of what the security of the United States entails, or he is engaged in his trademark pragmatism again, as the desire to obey the U.N. will eventually clash with the security needs of the United States.

It's clear at this point that the security needs of the US would have been better served with the support and aid of the UN. Either that, or not going into Iraq at all.

Your ad hominems aside, I would point out to you and Mr. Kerry that '[w]orking towards collaborative partnerships in our war on terror' is not the same as deferring to the U.N. I agree. Unfortunately, Bush is able to do neither.

Let's be clear on one more thing: I would consider myself an 'Anti-Bushite for Bush.' By no means is he my ideal candidate, but under his administration, I may at least have a chance to keep looking for the ideal before terrorists kill me.

Again, in this case you should be voting for Kerry, since Bush has done nothing but make us less safe, both from threats from abroad, and from our government itself.