Bush or Kerry or ???
- Thread starter lisan
- Start date
1000+ US troops kiled in Iraq
11,793-13,802 iraqi civilians killed
$131,800,000,000 cost of iraqi war since 9/9-(costofwar.com)
$177,000,000 daily cost of iraq war
$422,000,000,000 projected record deficit under bush (CBO)
$7,376,457,871,529 national debt
$309,034,567,147 intrest on national debt
4 more years Bush-Cheney ?
http://www.greenberg-art.com/
11,793-13,802 iraqi civilians killed
$131,800,000,000 cost of iraqi war since 9/9-(costofwar.com)
$177,000,000 daily cost of iraq war
$422,000,000,000 projected record deficit under bush (CBO)
$7,376,457,871,529 national debt
$309,034,567,147 intrest on national debt
4 more years Bush-Cheney ?
http://www.greenberg-art.com/
davidmc said:
Some very sobering figures, DavidMC, and I appreciate you posting them. Unfortunately, I find it all too easy to believe that those who always vote republican will again vote republican and those simply too steeped in the Bush rhetoric will send us toward a record 1-trillion dollar deficit under a single president. What does Bush care, he'll just be passing that debt on to the next guy in office.
"Unlike those nations whose rulers use their country's resources to seek conquests, to carry on warring contests with one another, and consequently plunge their people into debt and devastation, free societies are organized for the happiness and prosperity of their people, and this is best pursued in a state of peace." -- Thomas Jefferson
One wonders at the level of sickening disgust the founding fathers would suffer were they able to see what the country they created has become. What respect could they have for the American people who have quietly, even cooperatively, offered over the rights they fought so hard to win that we might value and protect them as did they?
keydates said:
At the risk of opening myself to some immature respose from a democratic or republican, I'll suggest that this election once again supports the view of Walt Kelly the originator of the comic strip "POGO": "We have met the enemy and he is us." (Actually, most of "us", the bicycling community, are doing the right thing by using a form of transportation that is truely environmentally friendly and not tied into the carbon fuels industry.) Events of the present are rarely the repsonsibility of the present administration (declared and undeclared wars being the exception). But, the future is what is riding on our choice of leadership at this time. In my mind the true issue is the changing environment. Who will best address this? Kerry/Bush? It's tough. I voted third party the last two elections out of disgust for a system that no longer serves the majority of "the people". Read Kevin Phillips book "Wealth and Democracy" to find out that 65 - 70% of US wealth is held by the top 1% of the population. We're all working for them and so is our government. This said I vote Kerry because I'd rather have somebody less impulsive and more willing to consider the mutifactorial nature of all things. Best wishes to us all.
Why should I, or anyone else who has disagreements with the administration? Turning tail and leaving is what one does when you couldn't care less about the outcome -- if a crappy restaurant misbehaves, you walk out, because hey, who cares. If your family does you wrong, you don't discard them. There's love there, and loyalty, and that's what makes you fight, and argue, and try to make things right.zapper said:
Suggesting that dissenters leave the country is a classic emotional response, but it doesn't have a meaningful rhetorical leg to stand on... aside from being a conservative rallying cry.
Here's a different spin on the same question "Bush or Kerry":
Assuming that full-scale civil war will break out in Iraq in the December/January timeframe (or early spring at the latest) and that it is inevitable, who would you want in office?
Obviously, if Kerry is elected, conservatives will point at the Democratic party and hold it to blame. If Bush remains in office, the liberals will apply blame to the Bush administration and the conservatives will counter with "it's the Democrats in Congress who are to blame."
The question to ask is: who is more committed to the Iraq situation? In order to quell the civil war, the US will have to commit massive amounts of ground troops...250,000 to 500,000 would not be out of line. And it's not only Iraq; the insurgency is growing in Afghanistan. And current military plans anticipate conflicts in Africa. Add to this the current threats the US is making to both Iran and North Korea (if you consider administration statements such as "We will not tolerate those countries obtaining nuclear weapons" as threats) and the determination of using current US policy for pre-emptive strikes.
None of this deals with domestic policy, which one should of course consider when electing a president. Given all this, who do you feel more comfortable with being in office...to either deal with or prevent some of the above?
Assuming that full-scale civil war will break out in Iraq in the December/January timeframe (or early spring at the latest) and that it is inevitable, who would you want in office?
Obviously, if Kerry is elected, conservatives will point at the Democratic party and hold it to blame. If Bush remains in office, the liberals will apply blame to the Bush administration and the conservatives will counter with "it's the Democrats in Congress who are to blame."
The question to ask is: who is more committed to the Iraq situation? In order to quell the civil war, the US will have to commit massive amounts of ground troops...250,000 to 500,000 would not be out of line. And it's not only Iraq; the insurgency is growing in Afghanistan. And current military plans anticipate conflicts in Africa. Add to this the current threats the US is making to both Iran and North Korea (if you consider administration statements such as "We will not tolerate those countries obtaining nuclear weapons" as threats) and the determination of using current US policy for pre-emptive strikes.
None of this deals with domestic policy, which one should of course consider when electing a president. Given all this, who do you feel more comfortable with being in office...to either deal with or prevent some of the above?
We have to stop the nation-buiding (old republican saying) & the repub's are the one's now doing this against their own doctrine.. Maybe we should blame the new american centurywhose tenets have to do largely w/ imperialistic tendencies. Who's going to pay for all of these foreign excursions by the DOD. The taxpayer ? Higher taxes & maybe a draft ? Under Bush ? Looks like it. Can't wait for his press conference to announce the raising of taxes & maybe a draft. Glad i already put in my time.Danian said:
The draft. Honestly, not outside the realm of possibility. I say this because all inactive national guardsmen in my state have been quietly recalled to active status. I just received the memo today on court-martial procedures for everyone who goes AWOL. The memo also includes instructions pertaining to arrest procedures if the guardsman does not comply. If the numbers are needed in Iraq, if all inactive guard and reserve members are called to duty, and if all usable retirees are recalled...then I don't see how else they'll get those troops other than a draft.davidmc said:
Someone on another thread mentioned that recruiting is up and that the Air Force & Navy are turning away people. Part true and part false. True the USAF and USN are meeting recruiting goals; it's the Army who are not meeting their goals. The Army, being the primary service with boots on the ground. (The Marines will always have recruits, so no one is worried about them not meeting goals.) In fact, the USAF & USN have approved special programs that will allow people leaving their respective services to transfer to the Army with special benefits.
A sound question, Danian, and ultimately, a pretty complex one. I think the truth is probably disappointingly moderate: it's likely that either administration would, in the short term at least (4 years), be able to contain the situation on a superficial level. In a sense, challenges like that one are easy. Put down a rebellion? The White House has the sheer might and the global clout to take care of business no matter who's in charge, more or less.Danian said:
The question is how they accomplish that task, and what the longer term implications are. What sort of effect will the administration have had on the region in general? What sort of priorities have they placed, along the way, on different economic and humanitarian issues? How have those priorities made life different for the local population, in the short and long term?
In the end, Kerry and Co. have a fundamentally different worldview than Bush and Co., period. Frankly, it's not as different as I'd like it to be, but it's different enough that I'm confident the former would better represent my sentiments on the global stage. I have precious little respect for the way the President conducts foreign affairs. As many a pundit has pointed out, assuming you've got a halfway decent alternative on the ballot, elections tend to be about whether or not you think the standing official has performed well enough to deserve a second chance... welp, for me, that's not a hard one.
Precious little respect, sadly. Precious little.
While the White House has the sheer might, I'm afraid that it's lost some of the global clout it used to have. The tactics of late have focused far more on brute strength than on diplomacy. The White House does not have the ability to end the rebellion. If it did, it would've done so a lot sooner to solidfy its re-election bid as well as start preparing us for the next phase in the Global War on Terror. Fortunately, most of the negative of this campaign has been largely directed at and personified in GWB and his administration rather than leveled against the country. For the most part, people all over the world still have some respect for the USA. When GWB & company finally depart the political arena (whether in 2004 or 2008), some of the darker aspects of our current situation will depart with them. Unfortunately, if Kerry wins the election, he will have much to do to repair our global impression and political power. He will be too distracted to take care of other business. Ultimately, in terms of building a power base, it may be more beneficial for the Democrats to lose the coming election, watch as things get worse internationally and domestically, and have overwhelming support for 2008 and beyond. (That last statement pertains only to Democratic political power, not for what's good for the country or the world. Think strategic long term.)lokstah said:A sound question, Danian, and ultimately, a pretty complex one. I think the truth is probably disappointingly moderate: it's likely that either administration would, in the short term at least (4 years), be able to contain the situation on a superficial level. In a sense, challenges like that one are easy. Put down a rebellion? The White House has the sheer might and the global clout to take care of business no matter who's in charge, more or less.
The question is how they accomplish that task, and what the longer term implications are. What sort of effect will the administration have had on the region in general? What sort of priorities have they placed, along the way, on different economic and humanitarian issues? How have those priorities made life different for the local population, in the short and long term?
In the end, Kerry and Co. have a fundamentally different worldview than Bush and Co., period. Frankly, it's not as different as I'd like it to be, but it's different enough that I'm confident the former would better represent my sentiments on the global stage. I have precious little respect for the way the President conducts foreign affairs. As many a pundit has pointed out, assuming you've got a halfway decent alternative on the ballot, elections tend to be about whether or not you think the standing official has performed well enough to deserve a second chance... welp, for me, that's not a hard one.
Precious little respect, sadly. Precious little.
Has anyone noticed the marked similarity between the phrase, "global war on terror" and "world war"? I think it not unlikely that this is where Bush and his cohorts are leading the world. Everywhere in the world the definition of terrorist differs just a slight bit. Everywhere the concept of who are terrorists and what constitutes terrorism varies slightly. By the time you defeat everyone considered a terrorist by everyone else, who is left standing? Certainly not America. Much of the world considers our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to be terroristic in nature.
It seems plain to me that the man who is plunging the globe into what may become World War III, should not be allowed to continue to drive the world into a frenzied, pointless battle where peace once stood.
"When we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace." -- G. W. Bush.
Seems he doesn't really even understand the difference.
It seems plain to me that the man who is plunging the globe into what may become World War III, should not be allowed to continue to drive the world into a frenzied, pointless battle where peace once stood.
"When we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace." -- G. W. Bush.
Seems he doesn't really even understand the difference.
Similar threads
