Bush / Kerry / Nader

You make many excellent points. The child analogy makes some sense, except the problem is we (the US) are not the parent in this mess. The UN is. Bush and his “cowboy unilateralism” (from Gen. Wesley Clark) have decided that we will be the ultimate enforcer in this fiasco. In addition, Bush’s grand scheme seems to be to democratize the entire Middle East – a grievous mistake. It’s a huge mistake because a) it’s not our place, as we have myriad problems in our own country to fix. And b) he does it in the name of his God, which is a God that the majority of the Middle East doesn’t understand, and finds offensive. Thus he pours gasoline on an already raging inferno.

I think everyone agrees Hussein was a tyrant. Yes he committed atrocities. Unfortunately, many of those atrocities were committed while he was still considered a friend of the US. Where was the response then? Our own duplicity is part of the reason we have no credibility there. Moreover, our occupation has not put an end to the atrocities. They have continued, only now it is the US that is the target of Iraqi venom. (just this morning we learn the US bombed and killed a wedding party of 40 – oops!)

Bush and company clearly wanted this war, and I don’t think I was the only one who, early on, felt like they were cramming it down our throats. Well he got his war, and now he has a colossal mess on his hands, something many people were predicting from the start. It seems pretty clear he has no idea how to manage an end to this mess, other than to keep throwing billions of dollars at it. We’ve got a monumental foreign relations/PR mess on our hands that may take decades to unwind, and I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that he has probably fueled another generation or two of terrorists who will make it their life’s work to exact revenge on this country and its people.

Is everyone in agreement that the Middle East should be democratized? And is that what we’re doing over there - granting freedom to all the Iraqis? Might it be better to grant freedom to everyone in this country – to free them from the tyranny of poverty (and idiotic presidents)? Think what the schools could do with $150 billion. WMD were a convenient red herring. The Congress (and the American people) can get behind a war if we feel we are somehow physically threatened. Not unlike the abortion debate elsewhere on this thread, the far right likes to polarize the argument by depicting liberals as naïve, unpatriotic, and sniveling cowards unwilling to fight for our freedom, and thus endangering the lives of all Americans. BS!

Erich Fromm says this,

"The lack of objectivity, as far as foreign nations are concerned, is notorious. From one day to another, another nation is made out to be utterly depraved and fiendish, while one's own nation stands for everything that is good and noble. Every action of the enemy is judged by one standard - every action of oneself by another. Even good deeds by the enemy are considered a sign of particular devilishness, meant to deceive us and the world, while our bad deeds are necessary and justified by our noble goals which they serve."

John Le Carre said this BEFORE the war,

“The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.”

It’s time to wake up people. Get Bush out of office. Oh, but I forgot. No new taxes, and maybe a tax cut is in the offing. Ok, I feel better. The far right wants their cake and eat it too. Yeah, billions and billions for the military. Build lots of bombs and missile defense systems to make me feel safe. And, oh yeah, I don't want to pay for any of it. Given what this imbecilic president is spending, if you truly support this war, you should be willing to pour half your damn salary into taxes and the war effort. Anything less is complete fiscal irresponsibility and completely unpatriotic. C'mon break out the checkbooks.

 

This is in response to EmilyM - sorry - didn't think it is necessary to quote your entire passage.

Nothing in the Bush administratons preparation for war mentioned genocide by Saddam. The entire premise was WMD. While we might have found one or two bombs left over from Rumsfeld "gift" to Saddam to fight "them evil Iranians", we have yet to find anything else.

OK, lets forget that the world is a better place without Saddam (that is a non-brainer - of course it is!). However, the Bush administrations move in Iraq had nothing to do with genocide. Had this been a fact, then we would have done something about the killing of the Kurds (by gas supplied by the good ole US of A).

It is a noble cause to fight tyrants, but lets look at past President's (including Bush Sr) who have ignore genocides on a much broader scale than what we know in Iraq:

1. Cambodia
2. Central Africa
3. Rwanda

What did we do? Nothing - nota. Could it be that there was no oil in this region (Noooo - couldn't be..... <sic>).

Lets forget about the fact that no Arab state subscribes to Human Rights (well - Iran, believe it or not, has the closest thing to a legitimate legal rights system). The Saudi's don't, and the Kuwaiti's are one of the worst of the offenders when it comes to basic human rights. (unless of course you are part of the oil family)

I travel all around the world on business and for pleasure. Even in supposed "allies" like GB, there is a ever present mistrust of the American government. We are have become polarized in our own self-rightousness due to a President who can't see the big picture and cannot separate his job from his staunch religous convictions.

I served for 5 years in the Navy and was proud of my service. I would never return under the command of GW. Whether it be Kerry, or another person, we need leadership that leads with an understanding that we can either use our power for the good of mankind, or just be one of the tyrants we so louth.

(sorry about the misspellings, I am an engineer, not a writer)

 

OK!

 

Thanks Bruce,

I was being sarcastic because of the lack of coverage by the media of the sarin find, while they are still reporting on the three week old prisoner "humiliation".

 

Mr. Engineer,

In regard to the above quote. I do not think, and highly doubt that the mustard gas and nerve agents used on the Kurds were supplied by the USA.

I spent my days in the Army, including one tour in the lovely Middle East sewer disarming land mines, looking for weapons, and walking very carefully and steady with all kinds of fun items that would have blown my life away with one wrong click. Yep, you can call that EOD. Boom Boom!

99.9% of all arms and biological agents in the Middle East area were and in many cases still are, supplied by our old enemies the USSR or todays Russia. The gas, the agents, the planes, tanks, howies, uniforms, AK's, and the lovely arm swinging goose step.

When you see, US items, it will mostly be in the hands of Isreal, though some items for Egypt would come in through the port of Alexandria.

Bruce and I have chatted on these threads recently about the whole mess over there. Living in the area, having the never ending craps, plucking the sand lice, and shaking the black scorpions out of your boots provide a whole new picture of reality.
Overall, it is a sore festering on mother earth.

Basically, Tom 57 (who loves my gut ) had some good points, you will not bring democracy to the area. Never had, never will.
America has sent troops to this area for 40 years now. During my stint we lost 42 people in 1983, and then the 5A went down with Alpha Company killing 70 others. But of course, we did not read much about that, not until the USMC took it 200 clicks north.

One definition is provided for this region. A bunch of nuts venting their own version of twisted religion on the other, so the winner, no matter which side can continue to live in the 13th Century.

As this topic is listed Bush / Kerry / Nader.

None of the above.

Bush is nuts, Kerry is a career twisted Liberal with personal asparations over country. "I want to be the next JFK from Mass". and a left over burnt out communist from the 60's named Nader.

In my overall humble opinion, it is quite nutty to think we will be the worlds police, that we now pay more in taxes per person than England, the country we fought due to taxes for independence, oh yeah, and why o' why we maintain high alert levels for terrorism, but all the while keep the flood gates open for any terrorist to enter the US.

Is there anyway we can cure Reagan and re-elect him, or bring Truman back from the dead?

Ok, Im off the box now

 

You choose to believe Al-Jazeera (sp?), rather than our Generals. That doesn't really surprise me.

When I was single and had no children, I was paying half my salary in taxes. Probably more. Yet that isn't enough for people like John Kerry.

Tom....I say this in all seriousness....I've been a police officer for a long time, and after awhile, we develop a "sixth-sense" where we can watch someone for 30 seconds and usually have a good idea as to what they're all about. I've met John Kerry more than once, and every time I did, the internal radar was screaming "NO GOOD". I'm very, very rarely wrong about these things.

As I've said before, I'm not very pleased with President Bush right now, but I truly believe that electing John Kerry as President will have disastrous consequences.

 

Radar alert....

Now you've got me wondering if your sixth-sense radar works online.... <gulp>.....

 

Sure. They exist in the imagination of Ahmad Chalabi and the minds of the people that he was able to con.

 

BLD,

Please provide me with some proof in the existence of God. Physical proof. You cannot do so, BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. The only thing that substantiates God is people's faith that a God exists. Thus, when you have a conversation about things that can be proven or debated using facts, you only make yourself look foolish by throwing in some sort of divine knowledge which cannot be proven. That is why we have separation of church and state. That is why bible colleges like Bob Jones University cannot gain accreditation. There is nothing to back up their claims or beliefs.

I'm not saying that a God doesn't exist, but you can't prove that one does.

Also, which God do you speak of? Which God gives us life and intelligence? A Christian one? A Muslim one? A Jewish one? Buddha? Zeus? There are so many sects of faith that one cannot have a logical conversation by throwing "God" into the mix.

That's why I prefer to keep my debates/conversations "God" and faith free. Thank You.

 

Bink,
Since you've already closed your mind and declared that no one has the ability to open it, why bother?

BLD

P.S. There are hundreds of Bible Colleges that are accredited. You obviously aren't very informed on accreditation, in addition to your lack of knowledge about evidence for faith.

 

BLD,

That is a cheap way out of the debate. By saying my mind is closed, you have simply decided not to retort.

I am very much aware that numerous bible colleges are accredited, and I know quite a bit about accreditations, as I work with SACS. That is why I chose Bob Jones University as an example. They cannot receive accreditation because they do not want the accrediting body interfering with their programs. Many other schools remain unaccredited, because they offer such degrees in "creationism." Why do they not get accreditations, because they have no facts to back them up.

 

Bink,
You're the one that stated that it could not be proven, not me. Why would I bother with someone who already knows everything about the existence or non-existence of God, all philosophies of the world, and all about science?

Also, my accredited Bible College had a required class on Creationism. That has nothing to do with a school being accredited or non-accredited. You don't know quite as much as you think you do...

BLD

 

Well, I have read through this thread and seen many things I could respond to from both sides, but in the main, most people have already made up their minds regarding which candidate they will vote for in November. With that being said, I will not argue for or against anyone else's point, but will simply give you my outlook.

Although I am deeply disatisfied with many of President Bush's actions during his term as President, I plan on voting for him once again, simply because I see him as the lesser of the two evils (third party and fringe candidates do not usually get my vote simply because I choose to vote for the candidate with the best chances of winning the election whom best represents my beliefs ... that leaves Kerry or Bush as my choices).

My main considerations for deciding on Bush was to look at each candidates record. In Bush's case, he is solid on military support, decided on his outlook regarding the traditional family, against abortion (I consider this an immoral act), a pro-second amendment candidate (I am a lifetime NRA member and believe in the majority of the values propogated by this great organization), nad he is a proven leader who makes decisions and then is willing to abide by them instead of pandering to the whims of the electorate. Areas in which I disagree with the President are in our current war in Iraq (I believe he tried to fight the war on the cheap and that it is coming back to bite us in the rear), failure to adequately fund the fledgling government in Afghanistan, the wide sweeping authority granted to him as the "Supreme Authority" under the Patriot Act (scary stuff, read the Act), his thinly veiled amnesty program for illegal aliens (when we should be spending even more money on securing our borders) and on his apparent unwillingness to publicly censure Rumsfeld (a man I do admire) for his failure to personally involve himself in the Ab Graihb abuse scandal and by failing to do so not understanding the strategic impact this scandal would have on us as a country.

Kerry was far more simple for me. When I looked at his voting record over his congressional career I found a politician that consistently voted contrary to my beliefs on most issues. I usually sum this up to most people by stating "John Kerry is more liberal in his voting record than Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy". In fact, Kerry has voted for the ideals espoused by the extreme left of the political spectrum so much that his conservative score given by the National Review was a mere 8%.

So, while I disagree with President Bush on many issues, I disagree with Kerry on most. Kerry today sounds like a moderate when he is on the stump, but I will judge him by his actions, or in this case his voting record, and based on that record, I really have no choice .... Bush best represents me and as such will garner my vote come November.

 

First, The existence of Jesus Christ, his miracles, his actions, his resurrection are viable proof for the existence of God -- The God I am talking about is Yahweh. Look up the Hebrew word, it is a complex word representing all the natures of God. He is unique and his relationship with man is quite different from any other god worshipped in history.

Second (and more importantly) the existence of God vs the non-existence of God is not a "fact" argument, it is a philosophy argument. You either support a world/people/belief system/morality ordered from a supreme being or a world view based on disorder (random selection). In either case you must build conclusions based on "faith" -- there exists no facts to back up philosophy.

However (and I am a student of history) there exists evidence on both sides -- compelling evidence, but one must choose where to put their faith. Throughout my pastoral career I have few that do not believe in God becuase of evidence, it is more a control issue. The non-believer wants control over their own decisions and life without being accountable to a theological position.

I would encourage you to really study the evindences for Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the Christian way of life.

As I said before, it is impossible for me to debate any issue without the injection of God, He is responsible for my world-view and shapes my opinions. It is His influence and my desire to serve Him, that guides my principles, just are your rejection of Him drives yours and you cannot leave that outside the argument.

I pray for you because I love you as He did.

Mike

 

BLD,

I never stated that I knew all about all philosophies and God, and science. All I said was that since there is no way o prove the existence of God, it should be left out of a scientific, or political debate.

And I am well aware that many schools have courses on creationism. My alma mater (a state school) offered a one as well. The contents of the class, degrees, and other circumstances are used by the accrediting body to dictate what the class/degree should look like. That is why many bible schools do not even apply for accreditation, because they do not want to have the government interfere with their programs. If you want, please give Bob Jones University a call.

I was not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if you feel insulted. You are obviously a person of faith, and that was not my intent.

 

BinkWile, what God do you not believe in?

Will you kindly review the following?:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

Jimmy,

I find your link to be utter nonsense. But, if you wish to continue this charade, here's a link for you:

http://www.atheists.org/church/myth.html

 

I have read these attempts to deny the existence of God numerous times. The problem lies in the fact those who attempt to deny God using Scripture simply do not understand Biblical interpretation and all Biblical exegesis entails such as a knowledge of the original languages, the meaning of idioms, etc.

Are you familiar with the classical arguments for the existence of God?

The Cosmological Argument

Existence of creatures requires the existence of a Creator. Every effect must have an adequate cause. The universe has not always existed. There was a time when the universe did not exist.

The universe must have had an origin. The Originator, the Source, the First Cause of all existence is God. Of all existence, God alone is uncaused, without a beginning. Before God created the universe, He existed alone. God is the First Cause of the universe.

The writer of Hebrews stated this argument when he said, "Every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God" (Heb. 3:4).


The Teleological Argument

God has left His fingerprints on everything He has made. Everywhere one looks in nature he can see the fingerprints of God. Order and design everywhere in nature identify the universe as the handiwork of God.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. 1:20).

"He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" (Psalm 94:9). "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches" (Psalm 104:24). "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8:3, 4).



The Anthropological Argument

The first two arguments consider proofs derived from the universe as a whole. The Anthropological argument considers indications of God's existence as derived from man himself.

Conscience in man testifies that a Moral Governor, Lawgiver, and Judge exists. Apart from God's existence, man's conscience cannot be explained.

 

Jimmy,

I agree with the argument that the universe has not always existed and that "something" had to put into motion. This may very well be the nature and existense of "God." However, thinking of the sheer size of the universe, and the possibilities of the numerous forms of life that must exist, do you not think that it is arrogant to claim that one faith on planet earth that has existed for only 2000 years is based upon the one true God??

That is my arguement.

Nowlook, I did not really want to get into a theological debate, I simply wanted there to be a separation between faith and fact while debating. I guess I struck a nerve.

Oh well, debating can only make one more knowledgeable.

 

Bink,

Again, I ask you -- how do you personally seperate faith and fact from your arguments? I am really curious, since you have positions/beliefs about God/god, how do you seperate the "faith" that has built your worldview?

If you can demonstrate that your political/scientific positions are completely free of phillosophy/faith, then I will try to figure out a way to put mine aside.

You have not offended (at least me) in anyway. My purpose on earth is to spread the Gospel and this is a fantastic way to do it, I appreciate your opening the door.

Mike