who ya voting for?

[Poison]

Wait and see in four and a half years and I'll bet W's 2 term average drops below 4.75%.

Yeah in Mexico......

 

[bocaj]

you didn't watch the debate, did you?

actually i did kerry has changed his position on this many times since he started campianing

 

[MaXJohnson]

Geeeeze

flash a little Copper Tone and the Michael Moore Democrats come crawling out of the woodwork

 

[XJJPR]

Just so the numbers are straight, unlike most politicians and Beezil can do, the war is at 119 billion at the end of August. It hasn't gotten to 200 yet. But then Bush can figure exactly how many troops have been trained either.

Continue on.......

hinkley

 

[LBEXJ]

As with most debates. the best "talker" usually is bestowed the "winner". Though Bush may not have "won" the debate, I appreciate the fact he tried this tactic (talk) but was brave enough to take action when it was obvious it was to no avail. Not too many past Presidents have had the courage to do this. Did he stop negotiating too soon and jump into this war too soon ... maybe, maybe not. Clinton spent 8 years talking ...

Kerry is a good talker. but does he have the courage to make the tough decisions? Is his ability to "change" or "adapt" his position on matters actually a sign of weakness? Is this a sign he is more concerned about maintaining his popularity and re-election prospects?

The President of the United States has the ability to hire or appoint people to his cabinent that are experts. IMO, it is not as important an attribute the President be especially the most brilliant or even the best talker (he can hire that out too), but he must have the courage, and be willing, to make tough and not so popular decisions.

My $.02 ...

Les

PS: Kerry would be a great forum user ... his post count would be right up there with the best.

 

[Sarge]

Ya know, we weren't the only country whose intelligence services believed Sadam either had WMD or was attempting to get/build some. Just that the press (both US and worldwide) has not mentioned that since prior to the invasion. It is a proven that Sadam diverted the "Oil for Food" program money for weapons and/or other non-food purposes. I'm not saying it was right or wrong tho. I (and most of us here) do not have access to the knowledge we and the 40 supporting nations did when they made the decision to invade.

The biggest reason we haven't gone into Sudan? Just as with Iraq, we are attempting to allow the UN the chance to fix the problem. Just as with Iraq, the UN is failing. Probably for the same reasons. Some member country or countries is making money there and stands to to loose money if we go in to help.

Sarge

 

[XJEEPER]

But the economy was better than it had been for years when Clinton was president, but this is really irrelevant. We can't change the past.

The key to Clinton's success, says Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar who served as his director of management and budget, was adhering to the "pay/go" agreement first forged by President George H. W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, whereby tax cuts or entitlement increases had to be funded on a current basis.

Since you brought up Clinton, let's take a quick look at his record:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered, and our Commander in Chief was commiting adultery with an intern in the Oval Office.
He then stared us in face and said he didn't have sex with Monica.......but later stated that he was sorry that he betrayed his wife and had sex with Monica.......where I'm from we call that lying and deception.

Oddly enough, Kerry changes his postion in a similar fashion........
Yah, we were much better of with Bill Clinton running the country........what an embarassment, because folks like you elected him. That's what's wrong with our country.

If we use all of our military might to kill all the people who might threaten us, how are we diffirent from Sadam and every other tyrant in history? We can't just go around tactically nuking everyone who badmouths the US.

First of all, if we were to use tactical nuke strikes in Iraq, the war would be over.....and the non-combatant Iraqi body count would be much higher. We haven't done this....lame arguement. If you can't differentiate between the US and Saddam......perhaps you should spend some time in Iraq. There is no parallel.

Can we assassinate the "really bad guys"? This works well if killing Osama or Saddam in a stratigic and precise manner would have made all of their followers throw thier hands in the air, shout "Uncle Mohammad" and immediately begin to do good deeds to their fellow men....... truely delusional.

We've been sending a message for years that we've lost our will to stand up to terrorist and fight for our freedoms, the same message that Kerry sent the other night at the debate......"we'll have more talks with the bad guys".......... and this will make them like us and not want to crash planes into our buildings, murder innocent men, women and children, take children hostage and shoot them in the back, bomb our ships and embassies, rape, murder and pillage, USE WMD"S ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE...........snap out of it.

To say that the US brought this upon ourselves because we're bullies is such a load of crap. This is nothing like the patriot revolt against the British in the 1700's.

What country gives more foreign aid than the US? If the US is such a terrible place, why are folks willing to risk their lives daily to get across our borders and into our country? If this war is all about oil, why are we wasting our time, money and military resources to help liberate the Iraqi people, rebuild, schools and infrastructure? It would be to our advantage to keep the Iraqi's in a state of oppression, so we could suck their country dry of crude, if that were true.
Couldn't we just capture the oil wells and transfer stations, which would be much easier for us to defend?

Sorry folks, not pickin up what's being put down. I don't have a political science degree, come from rich parents or live on welfare. Just a hard working man that believes in fair pay for fair days labor, able to see through the BS that the liberals and the biased media attempt to shove down the US public throat on a daily basis. I'm glad to see folks express their opinions, better than just going along with the herd.

The reality is...this war is about good VS evil, there is no gray area......figure out which side you're on.

 

[Captain Ron]

Some good stuff here, just wanted to counterpoint a bit...

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered, and our Commander in Chief was commiting adultery with an intern in the Oval Office...

Not entirely accurate, which is the problem with most efforts in simplification.
I ask, "un-answered how?", "Was the adultery the important issue?".

He then stared us in face and said he didn't have sex with Monica.......but later stated that he was sorry that he betrayed his wife and had sex with Monica.......where I'm from we call that lying and deception....

Clinton was not the only president to lie and deceive the American public. A president that repeatedly insists on many facts later proven to be completely without basis, as a reasoning to invade another country, may be guilty of lying also. When it comes down to kids from this country doing our sacrificing, connections of context to "sex with Monica" pale a bit.

Oddly enough, Kerry changes his postion in a similar fashion........
Yah, we were much better of with Bill Clinton running the country........what an embarassment, because folks like you elected him. That's what's wrong with our country...

Easy now, it's not a "us against them" situation. Keep in mind that the outcome of a vote, and the subsequent path we take as a result is one of the greatest strokes of thinking in modern times, it's one of the things that makes this country adaptable and innovative, and isn't really "what's wrong with our country".

First of all, if we were to use tactical nuke strikes in Iraq, the war would be over...

I do not think it would. Somehow, many people have the vision that when a nuke goes down, the other side just stops fighting, just like that. Just because that was close to the case the only time we used it, certainly does not translate to a set outcome of circumstance in every subsequent case.

Just for the record, nukes are an issue of deterence, whether you agree with it or not, that's what they have evolved into as policy for the world. Be the first to break that policy...

Can we assassinate the "really bad guys"? This works well if killing Osama or Saddam in a stratigic and precise manner would have made all of their followers throw thier hands in the air, shout "Uncle Mohammad" and immediately begin to do good deeds to their fellow men....... truely delusional...

Indeed.

We've been sending a message for years that we've lost our will to stand up to terrorist and fight for our freedoms, the same message that Kerry sent the other night at the debate......"we'll have more talks with the bad guys".......... and this will make them like us and not want to crash planes into our buildings, murder innocent men, women and children, take children hostage and shoot them in the back, bomb our ships and embassies, rape, murder and pillage, USE WMD"S ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE...........snap out of it. ...

It may be that we have been sending a message, but I don't think it has anything to do with our willingness to fight. If the situation was nearly as simple as standing up and fighting for our freedoms, it would have been done along time ago, any president, any time.

The fact is, we are not the only people on this planet, we do not represent the "right" thinking for the world, we were not bestowed with "right" to make everyone live, think, work, act, feel and accept what we believe to be nessesary or within our current zone of comfort. Surprise, but there is a whole planet out there that has the "right" to be considered, no matter how differently they think, or act.

To say that the US brought this upon ourselves because we're bullies is such a load of crap. This is nothing like the patriot revolt against the British in the 1700's...

There is alot missing there, conection and context.

What country gives more foreign aid than the US? If the US is such a terrible place, why are folks willing to risk their lives daily to get across our borders and into our country? If this war is all about oil, why are we wasting our time, money and military resources to help liberate the Iraqi people, rebuild, schools and infrastructure? It would be to our advantage to keep the Iraqi's in a state of oppression, so we could suck their country dry of crude, if that were true.
Couldn't we just capture the oil wells and transfer stations, which would be much easier for us to defend?...

These are great questions, but please understand they won't stand up as an asked justification.

Sorry folks, not pickin up what's being put down. I don't have a political science degree, come from rich parents or live on welfare. Just a hard working man that believes in fair pay for fair days labor, ...

...able to see through the BS that the liberals and the biased media attempt to shove down the US public throat on a daily basis. I'm glad to see folks express their opinions, better than just going along with the herd...

A question for all, do you get any of your news from the TV? Do you watch/read any foreign news source in it's native language?

If you intend to vote for Kerry, are you in the Kerry "herd"? What about the Bush "herd"?

...The reality is...this war is about good VS evil, there is no gray area......figure out which side you're on.

Man, you really did a great job with this until you got to here. This is one of the single most dangerous statements I have heard anyone make to date. I'm sure you have a more rational and much more complex basis for this than what came out here.

--ron

 

[WayneXJ]

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

 

[Ronbo]

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered,

(Snip)

You forgot. Clintoon launched Cruise Missiles and annihilated some empty mud huts.

:laugh2:

 

[Ramsey]

(Snip)

You forgot. Clintoon launched Cruise Missiles and annihilated some empty mud huts.

:laugh2:

yeah and that really put them in their place and scared them into not doing it again

 

[XJEEPER]

Not entirely accurate, which is the problem with most efforts in simplification.
I ask, "un-answered how?", "Was the adultery the important
issue?".

When a President is more concerned about his own personal gratification than protecting our country, it's an important issue. The point being that his focus was shifted to his personal problems and away from the problems of the world. Did having sex with Monica cause terrorist acts against the US? No, unless you believe that she's an Al-Quida operative.

Clinton was not the only president to lie and deceive the American public. A president that repeatedly insists on many facts later proven to be completely without basis, as a reasoning to invade another country, may be guilty of lying also. When it comes down to kids from this country doing our sacrificing, connections of context to "sex with Monica" pale a bit.

You're comparing the decision to invade Iraq with Clinton's decision to have sex with Monica and then lie about it? I was not, dig deeper.

Easy now, it's not a "us against them" situation. Keep in mind that the outcome of a vote, and the subsequent path we take as a result is one of the greatest strokes of thinking in modern times, it's one of the things that makes this country adaptable and innovative, and isn't really "what's wrong with our country".

What message does it convey to US citizens and the world community, when we elected Bill Clinton as President? Here's a few easy ones:

It's OK to commit adultery if you don't get caught.
It's OK to commit terrorist acts on the US because we won't fight back.

Are we not judged as a people by the actions of the people that we elect to govern us?


Man, you really did a great job with this until you got to here. This is one of the single most dangerous statements I have heard anyone make to date. I'm sure you have a more rational and much more complex basis for this than what came out here.

Seems to me that there is much more danger created by the rationalization and justification that goes on. It's easy to sit back and QB the country from the comfort of our living rooms. Sure, there are many variables and factors that led us to the war in Iraq.
To all of you, if your family was being oppressed, tortured, raped or murdered, how would you views change? We need to support the good that is being done and condem the acts of those that choose to do evil. We aren't perfect, we don't have all the answers and perhaps we've not done everything right......but it is much worse to be complacent, standing by and doing nothing than to strive to do good and help our fellowman.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing".
I'm personally glad that Pres Bush did something..........

 

[crookedletterd]

W '04

 

[Moto]

Wake up and smell the cofee. You know why France was so opposed to the war? cause they were making money before it started. Even thou the Iraqi airforce was a joke, isn't it odd that the planes (Mirage) were in operating condition with new spare parts? Also I remember reading something about some shady oil transactions that involved France...
And in regards to removing him from power... welll the removal was rather painless but there were (are) few that after wanted to stir up trouble nad their did. I think that if the "few" who stir up trouble and recruit the foot soldiers weren't there... the local government would be happily operating with next to no US help. Anyways, hindsight is 20/20 foresight (or something like that). Oh btw, wasn't Kerry one of the supporters of military action in Iraq? and then suddendly he's against it? Kind of like he was for the war in Vietnam and then later when political winds changed he was against it? Is that who you'd want of a president? Someone whose opinion changes with the change in the direction the wind blows?[/QUOTE

The issue of Kerry changing his mind on issues, is over played and very misleading. The biggest thing that people try and stick to him is that he voted for the war and then voted against it, if you dig deeper into that issue the change in his vote has to do with the topic he was voting on, the second time that it came to him voting for the war there had been something close to 40 amendments and changes, so Kerry decided to vote against it. This has been the case more than once which can account for the supposed "flip flopping"

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

 

[StuckXJ]

"We have the resources to carry this war. Its a matter of utilizing them."

i really hope that whoever the next president is will do this, the US needs to become ruthless when dealing with these kinds of situations. and personally i think bush would be the man to do it, before kerry at least. america is a powerful nation, lets strike fear into these people instead of sitting back while they mock us. if we started takign our prisoners from iraq and started beheading them, things might would change. sure a lot of people would htink we were awful, but eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is what is needed badly.

Come on that is the most red neck, stupid, and sick thing I have ever heard. Come on... You want this country to bully people around... So this is what this election is comeing to... people who want the US to be bullies (bush voters) and Those who don't (Kerry voters) No offence to any one personally but come on

 

[CW]

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

First of all, comparing the "total war" tactics of WWII to military tactics of today is like comparing apples to oranges. Durring WWII it was acceptable to carpet bomb cities because there was no real reliable way to aim bombs and because of this civilian casualties were very high. Many times the target was just a city. And dropping the bomb on Japan was done to save a U.S. invasion of Japan. That is not our strategy today at all. The world and war fare has changed dramatically since the 1940's. Our airstrikes are presision guided and aimed at military targets, civilian casualties are at a minimum. You can not win a war with air strikes alone as you stated, it takes ground troops to keep the peace and put down the few remaining enemies. As for Russias terrorist problems, Russia has had a cripled government for a while and it is not suprising they can't stop terrorism. Instability breeds terrorism and Russia has lots of it. The US has by no means "bombed every inch" of Iraq and we never will, there is a moral way to fight a war and that is why it is taking longer than expected to stabilize Iraq, if we wanted to use the tactics of the terrorists and behead POW's and detainies, hide in churches, use children to deliver bombs, and suicide bombers we might be able to demoralize them enough to put an end to this, but that is not the moral way to do it, so we won't. Thats what seperates us from them.

 

[Osprey413]

There is something here that alot of people are missing. Kerry voted for Iraq when Bush was saying that we were going to "disarm him". Kerry voted against the war in Iraq when Bush changed the plan to "we are removing a tyrant." Those are completely different reasons for a war. Many senators other than Kerry voted for the war and then later voted against the war because their first vote was based on a set of lies told by our President. Did Kerry honostly change his mind? I don't think so. He would probably still be in favor of the war if we had continued to do what we set out to do, disarm Sadam.

Another thing about the UN. Although almost everyone agree's that the UN is basically useless at this point, we have to remember that we sent them into Iraq looking for something that didn't exist, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why wouldn't Sadam disarm? Because he didn't have anything to disarm. The UN couldn't find anything, but the that wasn't good enough for Bush so he had to go in and find out for himself. When he couldn't find anything, he changed the purpose of the war from disarming to removing Sadam from power. Giving the UN a bad wrap over them not doing anything about Sadam's WMD isn't fair because he didn't have any WMD.

I think we should all stop the arguement about Clinton. You can't say that because Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, that makes every other Democrat a lier. Republicans lie just as much a Democrats, they just lie about diffirent topics. Bush made told a lie that has cost over 1000 lives and almost $200 billion. If Bush had come out and told us that we were going to fight Iraq and kill thousands in order to remove Sadam, the war would have never happened.
We need to realize that this war was started because of a personal hate for Sadam that Bush has. While Bush Sr. was in office Sadam came very close to assasinating him, now Jr. feels that he needs to get Sadam back for what he did to daddy. I understand that and I don't blame him. I also understand why Bush decided to make the American people take revenge upon Sadam for what he did. It is because Bush, like it or not, is a coward. More so than Kerry. Bush doesn't have the balls to solve his own problems. I'll give you an example that you can relate to. If you have someone you care about and another person threatens to kill them, would you turn to your neighbor and tell them to bring justice against them or would you do it yourself? Say you have a child and someone murders that child. Would you go after that person, or would you ask your friend to take care of it. Bush turned to the American people to take care of Sadam for him.

About Kerry being in the military... atleast he was actually part of it. Yes, Bush was in the reserves.... for a whopping three days. On the fourth day, he didn't show up. Under normal conditions that is considered going AWOL and results in jail time, but not for Bush because his father is an important man. Kerry on the other hand actually served in the military. He actually saw combat... he didn't just run away like Bush did. So don't give me this "Bush is a very courageous man", it's BS.


"it is not as important an attribute the President be especially the most brilliant or even the best talker (he can hire that out too)"

Frankly this scares me to death. You would rather have a blabbering idiot in control than someone who actually knows something. If he has to hire out for his brains and speeches, why don't we elect those people president instead of Bush? According to this statement Bush is nothing more than a talking head. Have you ever seen Bush try to make a speech or answer questions when he doesn't have someone giving him the answers? He either babbles on about something completely off topic, or he simply restates the question. The man doesn't know anything!
Bush's cabinet isn't much better. Dick Cheney is either always missing, or always sick. So he's never around to give much advise, and when he is all he does is campeign to re-elect Bush. Donald Rumsfeld has apparently been shunned from TV apearences because the last time he got on TV he made a complete fool of himself. His speech about what we know about Iraq still tickles me: "We have known knowns, that is we know that we know it. We have unknown knowns, that is we dont know we know it. We have known unknowns, that is we know we dont know it. We have unknown unknowns, that is we dont know we dont know..." I didn't hear the rest because I smashed the TV with hatred when I heard or Secretary of Defense making the stupidest comment known... or unknown... to man. People tell me that it didn't get any better.
These cabinet members are the people who tell Bush what to do!! And they dont even know themselves! The only person I actually trust in Bush's cabinet is Colon Powell, and my guess is that Bush never listens to a word he says.

I fear for the future of this country under the leadership of Bush.

 

[Moto]

First of all, comparing the "total war" tactics of WWII to military tactics of today is like comparing apples to oranges. Durring WWII it was acceptable to carpet bomb cities because there was no real reliable way to aim bombs and because of this civilian casualties were very high. Many times the target was just a city. And dropping the bomb on Japan was done to save a U.S. invasion of Japan. That is not our strategy today at all. The world and war fare has changed dramatically since the 1940's. Our airstrikes are presision guided and aimed at military targets, civilian casualties are at a minimum. You can not win a war with air strikes alone as you stated, it takes ground troops to keep the peace and put down the few remaining enemies. As for Russias terrorist problems, Russia has had a cripled government for a while and it is not suprising they can't stop terrorism. Instability breeds terrorism and Russia has lots of it. The US has by no means "bombed every inch" of Iraq and we never will, there is a moral way to fight a war and that is why it is taking longer than expected to stabilize Iraq, if we wanted to use the tactics of the terrorists and behead POW's and detainies, hide in churches, use children to deliver bombs, and suicide bombers we might be able to demoralize them enough to put an end to this, but that is not the moral way to do it, so we won't. Thats what seperates us from them.

Yes I understand that war tactics now are very different than 40 or 50 years ago, but my point was that people can not expect to resolve the terrorist issue and the problems in Iraq by bombing them into submission, much more needs to be done, and the current plan for Iraq appears to lack any plans other than that. I was trying to state that the whole eye for an eye tooth for a tooth thing doesn't usually work and that United world political pressure and united cooperation is often underestimated. But does that mean I think if the US is in imminent danger from a known target, or has been attacked that we should sit by and let it happen? Hell no, but You said it your self Instability breeds terrorism, would you say Iraq is more stable now? It clearly isnt so isnt that breeding more terrorism?, which poses a large threat to U.S forces and our own domestic safety. Its a very difficult situation and I for one don't have a working plan to resolve this issue, but I also will not be on the ballot this November

 

[Glenn B]

Hmm, I seem to remember we occupied Germany for quite a while. Not just Korea.

Wake up and smell the cofee. You know why France was so opposed to the war? cause they were making money before it started. Even thou the Iraqi airforce was a joke, isn't it odd that the planes (Mirage) were in operating condition with new spare parts? Also I remember reading something about some shady oil transactions that involved France...
And in regards to removing him from power... welll the removal was rather painless but there were (are) few that after wanted to stir up trouble nad their did. I think that if the "few" who stir up trouble and recruit the foot soldiers weren't there... the local government would be happily operating with next to no US help. Anyways, hindsight is 20/20 foresight (or something like that). Oh btw, wasn't Kerry one of the supporters of military action in Iraq? and then suddendly he's against it? Kind of like he was for the war in Vietnam and then later when political winds changed he was against it? Is that who you'd want of a president? Someone whose opinion changes with the change in the direction the wind blows?[/QUOTE

The issue of Kerry changing his mind on issues, is over played and very misleading. The biggest thing that people try and stick to him is that he voted for the war and then voted against it, if you dig deeper into that issue the change in his vote has to do with the topic he was voting on, the second time that it came to him voting for the war there had been something close to 40 amendments and changes, so Kerry decided to vote against it. This has been the case more than once which can account for the supposed "flip flopping"

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

 

[Goatman]

I fear for the future of this country under the leadership of Bush.

I feel exactly the same way about Kerry.

Additionally, the prospects of what will happen to access to public lands under Kerry/Edwards is scary, and is a major issue. It was said earlier in this thread that trail protection shouldn't be a major issue compared with other issues, or something to that effect, when considering who to vote for. I disagree.

Internal policies are at least as important, or more important, than foreign policy issues. The gradual and systematic removal of access to public land is a trend that WILL impact future generations, and to some of us it is a very important issue. The economy will go through it's cycles, and health care and welfare issues will always be with us, and the tax code will be modified periodically forever. But, once hard policy has been set to make some huge piece of land inaccessable, it is gone forever.

Some of you further east may not have much land to use, but further west there are millions of acres of wonderful places to see, that will never be seen by many future generations if motorized access is denied. Only a relative handful of people will ever backpack into these places, so motorized access IS very important. Whatever the other issues are, the Bush Administration has worked hard against the cycle that has been used by both green groups and by overzealous greens in the Forest Service and BLM. The cycle is to work hard to close access to major areas, forcing over use in smaller poplular areas, which then can't be maintained properly with Forest Service/BLM resources, which then in turn are closed due to a lack of ability to keep them pristine. Recreationists suffered huge losses under the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration has worked hard to reverse the trend in a way that has some chance of being sustained. A Kerry/Edwards administration would be a devastaing blow to the people that have worked very hard to protect our right to access, and to the policies that have been implemented in the last couple of years.

What anyone other than Bush would have actually done in Iraq is pure speculation. What Congress will do about a variety of other issues under a different administration is anybody's guess. What a Democratic President who is obligated to and swayed by the unbalanced positions and goals of green groups is very predictable. Kerry and Edwards are very liberal, and no matter what anyone thinks about the benefits or detriments of a liberal ideology, liberals are usually lead blindly down the primrose path of environmental issues by the slanted and many times untruthful presentations of environmental group leaders.

I have other issues that I feel strongly about that influence my political views and who I vote for, that I don't have inclination to discuss here. I do, however, want to stress that land use is easily as important an issue as any others that anyone wants to declare as important.