Quote:
Originally posted by krunchyfrogg:
Damn, if I hear one more person whine about a campaign that their party lost, I'm going to scream. I'm going to have to whip out my old bumpersticker (ahh, who am I kidding, I love showing this thing off!):
Nearly every person I talk to, in person, can NOT name a reason that they want Kerry to win, besides not wanting Bush anymore. these same people can't tell me where Kerry stands on most issues. It's really sad that people who don't do any research at all have the same power as those who actually care about the issues at hand.
|
First things first, I'm not American, I did not vote in this, or the last election. My opinion may be considered less relevant than yours on this matter, whatever.
I'm not going to bother arguing over the fact that the Republicans removed votes from the Florida vote last time round, that matter was already dealt with in Court and arguing about it now really won't make a difference, especially now that the votes are "in".
As for Kerry's stance on
the issues, well considering he's a Democrat and Bush a Republican, is suprisingly similar to Bush's stance in many areas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
"Bush wants to preserve tax breaks for the middle class, slash the deficit in half by 2009 and limit government spending. So does Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat supports a continued American leadership role in securing Iraq, enhanced authority for the United Nations and sending in more U.S. troops to complete the job if needed. So does Bush."
"Bush endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and, in a controversial step to Arabs, said it should be expected that Israel could keep some settlement blocks in the West Bank as part of a final peace deal. So did Kerry. Both tout greater spending to fight terrorism."
"Kerry sells himself as a pro-business, "free but fair" global trader and fan of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's monetary policies. As does the president. Bush wants to spread broadband Internet service to rural communities, assist small businesses with tax relief and impose greater accountability on schools. Kerry feels the same."
"Both candidates vow to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, a common pledge for modern candidates, and one that often proves hard to deliver. Bush, for instance, promised in 2000 to rein in government spending, only to sign into law record-sized budget plans that created record deficits, when measured in real dollars."
So if they're so similar in terms of their stance on the "War on Terror" and so on (admittedly not other issues like same sex marriages and Abortion) then why don't I want Bush to win?
In my opinion, and judging by his track record, Bush will not handle these issues as well as Kerry will.
Tell the people, your people, "We're going into Iraq to regulate oil distribution in the world in a more efficient and reliable manner, as well as liberate the opressed people of that country". Don't dodge the issue and insult the intelligence of your people, and that of the rest of world's, by claiming that you're doing so solely to remove a tyrant (Suddam),which I completely condone (not the fact that his office blatantly lied to the world). More people would have said, "Fine, sure go for it.", I know I would have. Don't use the scapegoat of WMDs, just come right out and tell your country the truth.
"You'll thank me later" .Liar.
----------------------------------------------
Bush's claim- Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:
- Sarin gas
- Mustard gas
- VX Nerve agen
Reality-Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
-------------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Reality-Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Reality-Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
-----------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Reality-Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
---------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Reality-Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
----------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Reality-Not True
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003
----------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Reality-Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
===----------------------------------------
Bush's claim- Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Reality-Not True
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
--------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Reality-Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
--------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration attempted to use every possible justification they could come up with in the hopes of obtaining greater popular support for the war both at the national and international level. They needed to do so because Saddam and Iraq had committed no aggression or act of provocation to justify an all-out attack against it by the United States. In a dozen years since the firdst Gulf War nothing had changed. Saddam was firmly in the box and everyone knew it. In fact, in 1998 there was tremendous international pressure to drop UN sanctions against Iraq due to their prior large-scale compliance with UN mandates. Almost immediately following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfwitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. In this attempt they were almost entirely unsuccessful.
Kerry may have made similar mistakes, maybe he wouldn't have. The point is that if someone in office has screwed up to the extent that Bush has, then why on Earth do they deserve another chance in office, to redeem themselves?
No, I believe Kerry should be given a chance.
[ 11-03-2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]