Close Topic Options

Politics - The Next US President? - Page 20

At the time President Bush sent us to war, all of the intelligence reports we had indicated there was a connection as well as weapons of mass destruction. The President of the United States needs to have compassion for his citizens more than for those in other countries.

I think his compassion was towards the thousands of people who had lost loved ones on 9/11 and he was determined to not let it happen again. Now, whether or not I agree with all of his decisions, I do believe that he should make the decision not people in other countries for him. I believe in sovereignity. I think John Kerry believes in no war, ever, under any circumstance. I don't think that is a healthy attitude to have as a leader. I don't think it should be the first resort, but I do think it needs to be an option you will consider, when necessary.

I think Bush is quite capable of controlling his emotions. Controlling them doesn't mean you never let anyone see you have them. It means you put them under control before you take action. I think he does this. Raw emotion would have had us bombing someone, somewhere immediately after 9/11. Instead, he waited until we had enough evidence and the proper military support to carry it out. (I am referring to our actions in Afganistan)

President US The Politics

So then tell me why in June 2001 the US Adviser said Saddam is no way a threat or building weapons of Mass Destruction. We know NOW that the intelligence reports have failed. We know now that Saddam or Iraq had no conection with 9/11. And Bush and his advisers knew about it.

Of course! I agree with you 100%. But this is not the topic of what I was saying, my point refers to what Farseer said about Bush feeling compassion towards people of the world not towards the people of his own country.

I do not see that as 'compassion', I see that as fulfilling his role as President of the United States of America. That's his job, he is paid to do his job and assure the safety to the people of his nation. It doesn't have nothing to do with compassion in my opinion.

That's a misconception, if that is the case, John Kerry would have not vote for 'yes' when it was the turn to choose whether to use 'force' against Iraq or not. He was one that said 'Go for it'.

The key word here is 'when necessary' and Kerry have said it in several times during his campaign and during his debate....the point is that he doesn't think, like millions of people around the world, that this particular war was 'necessary'. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in 'defending' his country when is needed.

The fact that CIA reports and one of the top CIA agents confirmed that as soon as 9/11 happened, Bush claimed it was Iraq's terrorism, it proves my point that he doesn't know how to control his emotions. He was not interested in other parties having their own investigation about 9/11 why?, he was not interested even participating (testyfyin) in the panel of 9/11, is that compassion?.

And? where it all ended?. He decided to use force against Afghanistan...good...then he doesn't finish the job and decide to attack another country???? If Al Qaeda was the responsible of the 9/11 attacks as a US President, wouldn't you concentrate all your forces, troops, intelligence, energy etc towards finding Osama Bin Laden? No! you go to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein?. It doesn't make sense to me. It is not logical. You as President have an idea where Osama is located but all you talk about is Saddam and Iraq??? what about the responsibles of 9/11?. What about news about their work towards finding Bin Laden?. Not a word.
They went to Afghanistan and they did not finish the job, they went to Iraq and they did not finish the job, what country is next?.

Edited: LDS_forever on 2nd Oct, 2004 - 8:30pm

Politics - The Next US President? History & Civil Business Politics

In reality, Kerry voted against because he voted against funding. He really had no choice but to vote initially for, because just about everyone in the country was, at that time, in favor, so from a political future point of view he couldn't vote no.

Yet, if you look at Kerry's voting record the throughout his political career you will see that he voted against just about any military bill put before him. This is why I say his voting record is more important than what he says he will do.

Page 20 President US The Politics

Maybe he is a peaceful guy. I do not know. Maybe we need to analyze if all the military actions that the US did in the past were desesperatly 'needed' to defend the country. I don't see anything wrong with Kerry not to want to use military force. It should be done ONLY in the extreme of the cases, when exist a real threat to the security of the people of the country in question.

President US The Politics

It is o.k. to be a peaceful guy, but you still should be sure your country has the means to defend itself if it should become necessary. Also, my problem with Kerry is I don't think he is being honest about his views of the military. If he were being honest and true to his voting record, I think he would need to say he can never foresee any time when he would support a war.

I think Kerry is still very much affected by his experiences in the Viet Nam War; more accurately his experiences protesting the Viet Nam War.

I don't want a President who views war as the first option, but I even more so don't want one who views war as NO option.

Politics - The Next US President?

This is a key factor. I think he has been psychologically affected by his own experience in the Viet Nam War, I don't blame him, not to mention that lots of US military personnel still admitting that the Viet Nam War was a huge mistake. But let's not get into that. Let me all ask you a question just for curiosy. Did President Bush ever experienced life-combat/war?.

Politics The US President - Page 20

No, I don't think GWB ever served in combat zones. He served in the National Guard here in the states as a pilot.

LDS said:

Of course not. Some were entered into on behalf of allies, or pleas for help from certain countries. Some were for other political reasons, such as Viet Nam, etc.

The fact is, a lot of our warring has come about from other countries requesting our help. The underlying reason has generally been to eliminate opression throughout the world. For this reason alone, the conflict in Iraq may be justified, although that's probably not the main motivation....

But all of this is straying off topic.

Roz

Politics The US President Politics Business Civil & History - Page 20

While GWB did NOT serve in combat, there is documented evidence that he asked at least twice to serve in Vietnam, but was turned down because he only had 500 hours in fighter jets, and other pilots with over 2000 hours were asking at the same time.

Flying a fighter jet, especially the ones that he did, is FAR more dangerous than anything Mr. Kerry saw.

I would like to point out that we got involved in Vietnam because of an alliance (treaty) with the French. When they were whipped, they called on the US to help get them out. Under the Democratic administration of President Johnson, we got thoroughly embroiled in the conflict. When Nixon became President, he started exploring for ways to get us out, without either destroying our forces or leaving our allies hanging in the wind. Eventually, we did leave our allies behind, so they got completely destroyed.

Mr. Kerry was an integral part of the process that got our allies destroyed. He contributed in a large way to the establishment of the communist Vietnamese government (for which he is considered a hero by that same oppressive government).

As for Iraq, remember that Mr. Kerry was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so had access to all the same intelligence that President Bush did. When he had the chance to object, to claim that the evidence was weak, he failed to do so.

Now, he is claiming that President Bush sent in our troops ill equiped, without body armor. That spending bill that Mr. Kerry voted against was the bill to provide that body armor!

Kerry has consistently voted, throughout all of his time in the Senate, against any action that would help provide liberty to any people. He has voted against all sorts of military spending bills. He has voted for US military involvement in areas totally unrelated to any sort of US interests (Kosovo). He claims that his "plan" will make us stronger at home, yet he refuses to ever give the slightest details of his plan, except to expand on what President Bush is already doing (training Iraqis to provide their own security, negotiate with Iran, get multinational involvement in trying to corral North Korea).

Finally, from my point of view, Kerry is an avowed enemy of Israel. Bush is a friend to Israel. Kerry will support the establishment of a Palestinian state under the terrorist Arafat. Bush, while supporting the same thing, has demanded that Arafat get the violence under control first.