G.W. Bush is going to lose...

on Sep 05, 2004

Well when you compare the sizes of America's Military to Britain and Australia, which Japan can't count because there force is for Self-Defense only if they had a standing military they would send them, it is only common sense we send the most, we got the best gear, the best toys, and the best boys to send to do the job (though the SAS and the Australian SF are good too) and yeah the Polish were a surprise with me, and even Germany is sending Wehrmacht (I think that's right) troops to train Iraqis, but always when it comes to the big butt kicking Americans will outnumber allied forces because of our larger military, unless the Red Army gets involved, or if by total miracle, China's Army gives us support than they would probably send the most, since THEY are the largest military force period, and air force, and navy. hehehe Just don't forget our jumping and battle buddies, who when it comes down to it stick with us through thick and thin, because we bonded with the two World Wars, and bond that will never break.

17

Castle

on Sep 05, 2004

Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but we could've solved this by working with our allies, and working with the U.N. and NATO to solve this problem.

Deaniac,
Which allies specifically should we have "worked" with that we had not already made numerous attempts with? Germany, France, and Russia were already so deep into Saddam's pockets that they would never support the enforcement of the many resolutions they signed on to in the UN. Was there ever going to be a solution to the cat and mouse game Saddam was playing with the US and those useless resolutions? After 12 years of enforcing no-fly zones and failed UN inspections, were we any closer to his compliance then when he first made his false promises at the end of Gulf War I? The simple answer is NO. Saddam thought that he could use the UN as a buffer to further delay, if not totally avoid, EVER having to come clean. Germany, France, and Russia thought they could block any attemp by the US to force Saddam to comply with the UN's own resolutions and keep the billions in oil and weapons contracts with Saddam. They were both wrong.

pk65........OHHH PLEASE
the oil conspiracy theory is old and tired.
Lets say for a second that you are correct and oil is the only reason that we even considered nailing saddam. In Gulf War I we blasted Saddam out of Kuwait and had him on the ropes. He was a sitting duck and our troops could have rolled right over his oil fields with ease if that was all we wanted. Why didn't we? It was ours for the taking and according to you thats the main reason we care about anything in the middle east. As far as Japan is concerned, yes they used the oil (and all the other resources) from the territories they conquered. Their main goal was to acquire as much land mass as possible - that was not already under Nazi control. Making it into an oil quest is rather simplistic.

18

RATM4EVA

on Sep 05, 2004

Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?

19

Mr Arex

on Sep 05, 2004

Keep on dreaming Mr. Alex. Exactly what is Kerry's Iraq Plan since you seem to understand his plan. His plan has changed from condemning the war to supporting the war. His plan is that he supported the first gulf war and disapproving the second (current) Iraq war. But here is the catch, his congressional votes are opposite to what he is saying now. Can you tell me why he vote against the first gulf war but really support it -- as he is repeatly saying now.

I hate to tell you this, but most people has less to vote for Kerry? Why do I say that because Democrats are less excited about Kerry than Republicans are excited about Bush -- many national poll has shown that result

Yea, his view changed, like I think it changed for a lot of Americans when the weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq weren't. It changed when the President's plan of attack looked less and less planned out. Talking about plans, this administration never planned for the insurgents and militant rebel groups that are currently attacking our troops. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, and once Saddam and his regime were gone, all Iraqis were to embrace us with open arms. Whoops.

Talking about plans, Bush also made no plans to discuss terrorism pre-9/11. Richard Clarke and his team kept trying to tell him what was up, but the president made no plans.

And there was certainly no plan for managing the budget. That's a mess that could haunt generations to come.

I agree with you that people aren't all that excited about Kerry. That's something that he really needs to address. But for myself, the fact that this administration has had such poor planning is enough for Kerry to get my vote. But that won't be enough for most, and Kerry does need to energize his base ASAP.

20

Castle

on Sep 05, 2004

Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?

Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets. I have to admit that my own pre 9/11 complacency would have me against any preemptive actions. I am thankful that today I am no longer foolish enough to think that there is an invisible shield protecting us or that the UN has any interest in protecting our national security. I am thankful that Bush has wised up as well. I do respect your opinion to the contrary though.

21

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

Didn't Bush say in the debates of 2000 that we should never participate in "nation building", which is what is being done in Iraq right now. This was his reasoning for not agreeing to send troops into Rhowanda. He also said the only reason we would ever go into Iraq is if they were building nuclear bombs, which wasn't happening. Isn't he... "flip flopping"?

Also in 2000 was the World Trade Centers still standing, things change.

Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets. I have to admit that my own pre 9/11 complacency would have me against any preemptive actions. I am thankful that today I am no longer foolish enough to think that there is an invisible shield protecting us or that the UN has any interest in protecting our national security. I am thankful that Bush has wised up as well. I do respect your opinion to the contrary though.

And having an opinion is the first step to thinking through a situation, when you don't think you get half-informed or mis-informed opinions which is nothing more than a parrot repeating, so to be debating the topic is always something good.

What if Albert Gore was president, I think all the actions would have still been taken, just glad Bush hasn't yanked stake and left Iraq high and dry just because it required a little nation-building, do the fact that heck most the nation was in shambles before a single bomb was dropped. As for nation building in general IT IS the American way to rebuild nations we have defeated to prevent a place like Post World War 1 Germany from ever happening again.

22

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

It is easy to say than done -- Kerry to energies his base. I perosnally don't know what I would do if I am him. His orignal campaign tactic is to go after Bush's strength -- at least what voter considered as Bush strength, which are national security, war on terror. Now, doens't matter if you and I believe those are Bush's true strengths, those are certianly what most american believe. I think Bush has about 15 points ahead Kerry. So the original campaign strategy is to even the level of plain field. Once voters believe Kerry is as good as Bush in handling the war on terror (he doens't even have to win over Bush), Kerry will win the election because most voters already considered he is better than Bush at the domestic issue, like overall economcy, health care and eduction.

Unfortunely, as you know, Kerry campaign strategy didn't work. People still think Bush is stronger at foreign policy. Not only they think Bush is stronger. Now more American than before believe the foreign policy and war on terror is more important than economy, education and health care because both candidates focus on it so much. Effectly Kerry's team did Bush a favor. Objectively I don't know what can Kerry do. I don't see how he can persude voters he is a better commander-in-chief. At the same time, it is a bit late for him to go back and focus on economy because he, himself, made a big deal about national security in the first place. Words I heard from the Kerry campaign team is that they are going to focus back on economy, but in my opinion, it is too late.

Mr. Alex. It is one thing to argue Bush doesn't have the best plan. It is another thing that Kerry does have a position. I mean... at least one has to deicde on something before you can execute a plan. You may think Bush has a bad plan by inviting Iraq, but at least you cannot doubt the intention for the invarsion. Kerry... do you honesty know if he was the president, he would or would not invite Iraq. I seriously don't know. Sometime, it seems he is for the invarsion but not the exact plan, (that is he will something slight different than Bush), but sometime he seems like he is not at all into the invarsion at all.

To answer your comment about Dick Clark. I won't take his words too seriously because something doesn't add up. For example, Clark has repeatly said during the Clinton adminstration Osama Bin Laden was always on the top of the list, not other issues. But that cannot be true, as Bob Kerrey (a demcrat senator) nicely pointed out during the congressional hearing that why didn't we attack or do something about bin Laden if we truely believe it is the "most threatening" factor to our country. Surely Clinton would have dealth with bin Laden if he is the "most threathen" issue. In fact we have several terriost attacks by bin Laden prior to 9/11 and there is no documentation prove that the Clinton adminstration took it as the "most threathening" issue. Don't forget that all of the 9/11 hickjackets are already in this country way before Bush was president. They stayed from 2 - 5 years prior to the attack. And even Dick Clark himself said there nothing truely can be done once they entered the country. So even if you believe Dick Clark... what he truely said is that Bush didn't really put bin Laden as the most theatening issue -- which I do agree with him, but so is Clinton. He personally and many others have testified that it is very unlikly prevent 9/11 after the terriosts have established terriost cells here for years. I believe that is the conclusion from the 9/11 hearing as well.

23

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

By the way, I understand how you were defending Kerry changed his position on the Iraq War. Through I disagree with his change, I can somewhat understand. What I don't understand is that why he voted against the first Gulf War (Desert Storm), and now say he is for the war and that is the way a war should be fought. As the commander-in-chief, he doesn't have the luxary for having a "hind-sight". You dealt with your cards. If Senator Kerry voted for the Iraq War because the information he had persude him so, then he cannot argue Bush made a mistake going into the war because Bush made the same judgement he made. Everyone believe Saddam had weapon of mass destruction. Not just US intellgence, so does Isarel, Britain, even UN and Russia. Putin has recently told press that his intelligence believe Saddam was planning his own attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

The guy had the weapons and used the weapons before the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, he didn't let the UN inspector look at them, and then he kicked eveyone out 1998. Then he told people that he has destoryed them on his own. As the president of United States, you can make two mistakes. You either believe Saddam or don't. There isn't a "maybe" here. One mistake is to attack Saddam and he may very well destoryed his own stockpile (but somehow he likes to destoryed them secretly and not in front of the UN inspectors). Or you can make the other mistake which is to believe Saddam and run the risk that he may use those weapons upon US soil. Don't forget. Saddam hates US. Seriously hates US. Saddam is the only national leader openly supported the result of 9/11 on his national TV. I am not arguing if he actually helped the terriosts. All I am saying is that he go on his TV and praised the terriosts. Doesn't that define his stance? Doesn't that possibly mean he might do the same thing given the chance.

As a national leader, you have to take chance because you don't have luxary to wait. I personally don't understand how people can critized Bush adminstration didn't "connect the dots" prior to 9/11, and at the same time argue the adminstration doesn't have "factual evidents" to attack Iraq. Frankly, "connecting dots" is about "guessing". Let's time travel back prior to 9/11, no one believe Al Quada was a bigger threat than Saddam. After September 11, and before the Iraq invarsion, if we were to use the same threshold to attack Al Quada to prevent terriost attack, then we surely will attack Iraq. Both factions hate United States. Both factions have attacked United State personal or military outside of United States. Only Saddam has WMD and Al Quada doesn't.

24

RATM4EVA

on Sep 06, 2004

Pre 9/11 statements are easy targets.

Good point, but hasn't his reason for the war changed? The primary reason being because he was a threat and now it was because the administration wanted to liberate Iraq. Isn't the rhetoric that Iraq is now free insignificant because that was not the reason for going in to Iraq?

25

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 06, 2004

The President never changes his reason for going into the war. He stated repeatly in the GOP convention and previous interviews that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was a threat to his people and neighbors. In fact, I believe the democrats are still critizing him for not changing his stance. You can't attack the same man on both sides. You can't critize him for btoh changing and not changing his view, which one is it? The reason going into Iraq has not changed.

The reason to STAY in Iraq is always about regime change. He has always said we are going to stay to "free" or "regime change" the Iraqians, just like what we are doing in Afghan. I don't think he ever said we will simply go in Iraq destory Saddam's weapons and leave. Everyone know he want the military to stay for some time. Bush is refocusing from the reason to go to war to the reason to stay, which is about liberating Iraq. The argument is that if you simply beat up the terriost and leave, then you will never solve the real problem. You have to stay and reshape the political atomsphere in the regime, much like what we did in German and Japan. I believe Bush must have mention his vision tens times by now. So I don't think it is "insignificant to mention Iraq is free now and that we cannot leave now. Look, we are no longer at the invarsion mode, we are in the occupsion stage. I expect him to talk about Iraq is free now, and I will be expecting him to update me about the transformation progress. This is not the same as changing his reason to go to war.

26

Deaniac

on Sep 06, 2004

It is really ridiculous.

1) George W. Bush has left children behind! His 'No Child Left Behind' program has been giving kids more tests..and has done virtually nothing.
2) G.W. Bush has done nothing for the American people...the 45 million American people who don't have health insurance.
3) The economy has been falling and falling ever since G.W. took office. He has done practically nothing to help the American people (the unemployed American people) to find jobs. He still has tons of people to help, and he hasn't done that.
4) All he cares about is the War on Iraq and the War on Terror. He is putting more funds into Mars rather than putting funds into the economy and jobs.

z0belisk...or whatever your name is:

That is no reason to attack a guy who proves no imminent threat to the U.S. You need to listen to me before you start blabbing. Did Saddam kill an American? Did he step foot on America? Did he bomb the U.S.? Did he obtain uranium from Africa? Did he do all those miserable things? Was he connected with Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Ladin? No. No. No. No. No. He was even willing to negotiate. Germany, France, and Russia actually had reason to believe there was no reason to attack. And it was ridiculous. We were about to ban everything French..come on...why did we change French Fries to Freedom Fries???

Now, we are stuck in Iraq because if we leave, all the Iraqis will continue to attack each other...and Iraq could be the next Yugoslavia or Macedonia! We needed to leave Iraq alone...even better then bringing NATO or the UN in. We needed to just worry about ourselves and the War on Terror. We needed to worry about the Economy, the War on Terror, who caused 9/11 (in which i know was G.W. Bush and his faulty administration), Jobs, Health Care, No Child Left Behind.

All these things were the most important...and we went to Iraq as a cover-up of the fact that we didn't find Osama Bin Laden???

27

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

One of the problems with the polls is they fail to factor in third party candidates. When they add third party candidates, they add Nader, which is a weighted poll because:

1. Nader is not on the ballot in all 50 states.
2. Nader is an independent, not a representative of a third party.

This election will be interesting, to say the least.

28

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 06, 2004

1) The No Child Left Behind program is good. First of all, giving test is not the only thing. Giving tests to make school accountable is not a bad thing. There is grade inflation in America -- everyone gets A's. Other countries which have states exams are doing well.
2) The health insurance problem is not created by Bush. It was there before he arrive the office. Can you ONLY make him responsible.
3) The economy is falling before Bush is in office and actually the economy has been recovering for over a year. There is a difference between economic growth and umemployment. Have you seriously look at the recent economy? The GDP growth is huge in America. Even the unemployment is not as good as people like to, the number has been dropping. It was about 6% and now it is down to 5.6%. I am an economist, and unless you have some figures and proofs. I don't like to be lied to.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/?cnn=yes

4) He put more fund into Mars than into job growth? Like how much? To stimulate an economy, he used a tax cut. This can be considered as "funding".

So the only reason to attack a country is after getting an attack? If that is what you really believe, then you must hate Clinton very much. We have Somolia, Bonsian, Yugosolvia and more wars under Clinton adminstration. Are you seriously telling me that these three countries are bigger threat to USA than Saddam. The War on Terror is an offensive doctrine. It is not the Cold War strategy which doesn't apply to terriosts. The War on Terror is never simply just about Osma bin Laden. It is about elimate any terriost threat before it begins. It is ridiculous to paint Saddam as a person willing to negotiate. He doesn't. He didn't do it for 12 years and he violated 14 UN resolutions. Does that sound like someone with good faith. That is why the War is not called War on Bin Laden. It is the same idea that the Cold War was not simply about Russia, it is about Communist. Maybe German, France, and Russia don't like America to attack Iraq because they have the largest oil contract with Saddam and that Saddam owe them alot of money. France for example is the largest oil buyer to Saddam. Have you heard about the misuse of "Oil for Food" program? Haven't you noticed that France and German didn't want UN get involve in the recent Sudan genocide. Oh, somehow maybe they have the largest oil contract there too. I wonder why.

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2004/07/why_france_and_.html

Why would you think bringing in UN and NATO help? Name one nation rebuilding done succesfully by UN or NATO without haevy US involvement. I can name two nation rebuilding done by US: Japan and West Germany.

29

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

1) The No Child Left Behind program is good. First of all, giving test is not the only thing. Giving tests to make school accountable is not a bad thing. There is grade inflation in America -- everyone gets A's. Other countries which have states exams are doing well.

NCLB is not a good thing, actually. The program was written using an initiative known as "Goals 2000" as its foundation. Among the agendas pressed by Goals 2000 was the proposal to replace high school diplomas with "master certificates" in a specific field chosen for the individual through aptitude testing in the middle school years. Basically, it's a rewrite of the socialist practice of choosing your profession for you and limiting your career options. Goals 2000, incidentally, was authored by Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.

Among the other problems with NCLB is it makes education a federal issue, rather than a state issue, as it should be. I don't see NCLB as being a horrendous evil, as I do belive it was well intentioned, but highly flawed. I believe that creating bigger government increases bureaucracy and actually limits local and state educational systems from performing most efficiently by draining much needed funds to support yet another level of bureaucracy. Further, it has led to some rather backhanded attempts of local school districts to lure homeschoolers onto their rolls, as homeschoolers tend to have higher test scores than their peers, and this helps the districts skew their averages in their faovr.

30

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 06, 2004

Very educated person Gideon. Yes, I have major problem with No Child Left Behind because it is effectly turning a state policy to federal right. I believe in small governement or local control. Through there is major grade inflation and the public school is certainly failing our children. We are producing high school graduates who cannot read and write. How should I put this.... Well, if the states start to fail our children and our soceity, I see no option by to let the federal come in get take some control. For example, if the local police is corrupted and ineffective, then we have no choice but to let others come in.

As far as the NCLB wanting master certificates.... I don't think that is true. I didn't hear anything about it, if that is true, I highly oppose to that.

Republican party is changing. The 50's - 80's republicans are into small government, but that may not be long. There is a recent strong movement to go to way back to the founding Republican Agenda -- to Whig Party, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevlt. In fact, George W. Bush is known as the major force for this. That is strong government. Don't foget. Republican used to stand for federal and the old Democrat was for state right (recell the civil war). There is a difference between strong government from the orignal Republican Part yand the big government from the Democrat Party.

The idea of strong government is to let government play a big role in the law, but not necessary in people's life and choice. For example, the recent proposed school voucher and prescription drug. Either of which make government smaller, espeically the prescription drug will make government spend more. Yet, we are trying something different than the simply big government approach as European and Canadian. The prescription drug for seniors in theory do allow senior to choose. So is the newly proposal health care plan. School Voucher idea actually let government stay just as large as before. The tax is the same, the only difference is that the parents can choose which school to send their children to. These are so called strong government policy.

Personally, I am still in the small government philosphy but I am starting to incline to switch to strong government policy.