Do you think Bush deserves to be re-elected?

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Because I like Bush as a president. I agree 100% with the war. I wish we had gone in sooner. If we didn't step up and get sadam out who would? He would still be there hurting his own people while he lived a nice life with his however mant mansions. He would still be killing his own people. Why on earth would you not want to try and get rid of him? I know this will pisss people off but I really don't care but, I for one don't really wanna pay $3 a gallon for gas so if this war saves me some money on gas then thats ok for me.

So, basically, it's all right to oust the dictator in an oil rich country, but the other dictators, some of which could be considered WORSE than Saddam get to carry on with their lives? What's wrong with this picture?

Also, I would like to reiterate that America has long held a policy of not launching offensives against other countries that aren't threatening it. There's also the matter of the fact that we went against U.N. wishes to do so.

[DocFrance]

So, basically, it's all right to oust the dictator in an oil rich country, but the other dictators, some of which could be considered WORSE than Saddam get to carry on with their lives? What's wrong with this picture?

You can't go out to tackle all the world's problems at once. That's just unrealistic.

[Shadow Nexus]

You can't go out to tackle all the world's problems at once. That's just unrealistic.

Nor should you. Declaring the war on every country with an evil dictator with the pretext of...uh...liberation, is just the perfect way to make USA the most hated country of all.


Oh, wait. More hated, I mean!

[escobert]

Thanks Doc I was just about to say that. Iraq harbors Terrorists willingly. These same groups of people kill Americans. In World War I the USA was not directly attacked if I remember corectly yet we still entered the war.

[Shadow Nexus]

Thanks Doc I was just about to say that. Iraq harbors Terrorists willingly. These same groups of people kill Americans.

USA also harbors terrorists willingly. Terrorists like Pinochet, Sharon, Batista or Videla and Franco (In a lower degree, this last two). Hell, they even supported Saddam at a time.

Does this mean Argentina, Chile, Spain, Cuba and a lot of other countires are legitimated to declare the war on USA? Cool! *grabs a gun*

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

If it truly were all about liberating the Iraqi people from a corrupt despot, then I might be more favorable to the idea of the war. But it isn't, and you cannot convince me that it is. If we had attacked another despot in a country that hasn't had as much emnity with the US in the past, especially with the Bush family, then I might be more inclined to believe that the US is playing the part of the liberators. Since this is Iraq we are talking about, and Saddam besides, I am, at best, extremely skeptical.

[escobert]

There are planes to send troops into N korea fter Iraq.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

That makes me even less inclined to vote for him. North Korea is actually what I was expecting, as I know we have a problem with them as well.

As far as the Iraq war goes, let's see... can you come up with some justifications for it? If they're really good, I'm always open to changing my mind.

[Shadow Nexus]

There are planes to send troops into N korea fter Iraq.

Weeeeeeee!!! Let's libertate the world! I'm sure people in Korea will love USA after they bomb their houses.

I am starting to believe this wars, supposed to end with terrorism, are in fact fomenting terrorism. Well, I am not starting to believe it, I have believed it from centuries ago.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I am starting to believe this wars, supposed to end with terrorism, are in fact fomenting terrorism. Well, I am not starting to believe it, I have believed it from centuries ago.

Yea, that's pretty hard to dispute nowadays.

[Ariel]

Well... I'm not familiar with how good a leader Bush is, not living in America. But even vaguely theocratic leadership isn't a good idea, especially in a nation that has a good deal of religious diversity. (Which I'm guessing the US probably would have...?) A leader should make decisions for the people based on common sense, rather than any religious ideals they hold personally.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Well... I'm not familiar with how good a leader Bush is, not living in America. But even vaguely theocratic leadership isn't a good idea, especially in a nation that has a good deal of religious diversity. (Which I'm guessing the US probably would have...?) A leader should make decisions for the people based on common sense, rather than any religious ideals they hold personally.

Exactly. While at the time there is a definite majority of Christians, usually protestant, the whole nation is not, by any means, entirely Christian. We don't all adhere to one narrow definition of faith, and justification of core decisions with faith should not have a place in political decisions concerning the country.

[Jebus]

Patriot Act.

That's all I really need to say. It may not have been his idea originally but it was someone on his cabinet and he went along with it.

There's more, but that alone is reason enough to vote against him.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Lets see he knowing went against CIA intelligence, multiple times and telling the american people, of WMD and scuds(that can only go 500 miles), and trying to scare the american people into support, by telling them Saddam is trying to create WmDs to give to terrorists, also when the CIA said it was "Highly Unlikely" in other words they said what Pres. (APPOINT) Bush said was BS.

So i dont feel that Kerry is a perfect canidate either but he can beat Bush... So its not electing Kerry its kicking Bush out!

Oh and on the subject of Saddam harboring Terrorists, what about the KKK, huh? They r as Terrorist as they come im sure, but Bush refuses to touch that subject, why? Because they'll vote for him.

[The Man]

Bert: Well, such a president (liar and cheater in the domestic area) doesn't eat such a big hole in the population and finances as an honest president constantly fighting a conventional war.

The biggest problem with Bush is that he's not an honest president, actually. He's far more dishonest than Clinton ever was.

I didn't think Bush deserved to be appointed in the first place; I certainly don't think he deserves another term in office. He's already succeeded in turning public opinion completely against us, even after we had 9/11 to make everyone go "Poor America" for a short while.

What I've heard from Kerry recently is a large assortment of shrewd policies. He's not the best president we could have, sure, but he'll be a lot better than Bush.